United States v. Auster

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Evidence

EvidencePsychotherapist-patient privilegeRule 501psychotherapist-patient privilegeconfidential communicationsreasonable expectation of confidentialityTarasoff dutyduty to warn

Facts

Auster, who was in therapy for paranoia, anger, and depression, had previously made violent threats during therapy sessions, and his therapists had repeatedly warned him that such threats would be communicated to their targets under a duty to warn. After CCMSI notified him that part of his workers' compensation benefits would stop, Auster told Dr. Davis that unless benefits continued he would carry out violent retribution against CCMSI personnel and others. Davis sent CCMSI a warning letter describing the threat and Auster's claimed stockpile of weapons, and Auster admitted he knew threats of that kind were relayed in that way. He was then arrested and charged with extortion, and the district court nevertheless suppressed the therapist communication as privileged.

Issue

Does the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege protect a patient's threat made during therapy when the patient knew the therapist would communicate the threat to the intended targets? More specifically, can the privilege apply absent a reasonable expectation of confidentiality?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and Jaffee, the psychotherapist-patient privilege covers only confidential communications. If, when making the statement, the patient had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality because he knew the therapist would disclose the threat to third parties, the privilege does not apply as a matter of law.

🔒

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 Houston, Malik Turner met with his licensed psychologist after receiving notice that his contract job would be terminated. The psychologist had repeatedly told Malik that if he made a serious threat against an identifiable person, she would warn that person, and Malik said he understood. During the session, Malik said he would stab his supervisor at Lone Mesa Logistics on Friday if the termination went forward.

In a later federal prosecution, is Malik's statement most likely protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege?

Explanation. The privilege applies only to confidential communications. Under the majority rule, if the patient knew when speaking that the therapist would relay the threat to the target, the patient had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality, so the privilege never attached. The court did not need to rely on a separate dangerous-patient exception.