United States v. Alperin

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2001 · Evidence

128 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencePsychotherapist-patient privilegeCriminal discoverySelf-defenseImpeachmentFederal Rule of Evidence 501Jaffee v. Redmondin camera review

Facts

Howard Alperin was charged with assaulting a United States Customs Inspector in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). The Inspector claimed Alperin shoved her without provocation, while Alperin claimed she first forcibly grabbed his shoulder and that he pushed her away in self-defense. In its initial disclosure, the government produced a psychiatrist's letter stating that the Inspector had been treated for depression since September 1, 1999, and had suffered a marked worsening in her depression since the January 2000 incident. Alperin then subpoenaed her psychiatric records, and the Inspector asserted the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Issue

When a criminal defendant seeks the complaining witness's psychiatric records to support self-defense and challenge credibility, must the subpoena be quashed under the psychotherapist-patient privilege recognized in Jaffee, or may the court compel production for in camera review? More specifically, does the potential materiality of the records to the defense justify judicial review despite the asserted privilege?

Rule

Although Jaffee recognized a federal psychotherapist-patient privilege and rejected ad hoc balancing in the civil context, in a criminal case the court may order in camera review of a complaining witness's psychiatric records when the records may be materially relevant to the defendant's claim or to the credibility of a key government witness, and where pretrial subpoena requirements are satisfied. Pretrial production by subpoena duces tecum is appropriate when the materials are evidentiary and relevant, not otherwise procurable in advance of trial, necessary for proper trial preparation, and sought in good faith.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Noah Mercer is charged with assaulting a transit safety officer during a platform dispute. Noah claims the officer lunged at him first, and the prosecution has already disclosed a clinician's note stating the officer had been in psychiatric treatment before the incident and experienced a substantial worsening of symptoms afterward.

If Noah subpoenas the officer's treatment records to support self-defense and challenge the officer's credibility as the government's principal witness, how should the court most likely rule on the prosecution's motion to quash?

Explanation. The majority held that in a criminal case, where a complaining witness's psychiatric records may be materially relevant to the defense or to the credibility of a key government witness, the proper course is not automatic quashing but in camera review. The court emphasized that the defendant was not automatically entitled to the records themselves; judicial screening comes first.