In re Grand Jury Investigation
918 F.2d 374 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A clergy-communicant privilege exists under federal common law, protecting confidential communications made to a clergyperson in their spiritual capacity. The presence of a third party does not waive this privilege if their presence is essential to and in furtherance of the communication.
Facts:
- A fire, suspected to be arson, occurred at the newly purchased home of a black family in an all-white Pittsburgh neighborhood.
- Mr. and Mrs. George Kampich, Mrs. Kampich's adult son George Shaw, and Shaw's fiancee, Patty DiLucente, lived together in the house next door to the site of the fire.
- Within days of the fire, the Kampiches, Shaw, and DiLucente jointly sought counseling from Reverend Ernest Knoche, a Lutheran pastor.
- Mr. and Mrs. Kampich were members of Pastor Knoche’s church; Shaw occasionally attended services, but he and DiLucente were not members.
- At the time of the counseling session, DiLucente was engaged to Shaw but was not related to the other parties by blood or marriage.
- Pastor Knoche understood that the communications made during the counseling session were confidential as a necessary part of his ministry.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury convened in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to investigate a suspected arson for potential civil rights violations.
- The government issued a subpoena to compel Pastor Ernest Knoche to testify before the grand jury about a counseling session.
- Pastor Knoche moved to quash the subpoena in the district court, asserting the clergy-communicant privilege.
- In response, the government filed a motion to compel Pastor Knoche's testimony.
- The district court held a hearing and denied the government's motion, finding the communications were protected by the clergy-communicant privilege.
- The government, as appellant, appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal common law clergy-communicant privilege protect communications made during a group counseling session that includes a third party who is not a family member, if that third party's presence is essential to and in furtherance of the spiritual communication?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge
Yes. The federal common law clergy-communicant privilege can protect communications made during a group counseling session, even when a non-family third party is present. The court formally recognizes the privilege, holding that it protects communications made (1) to a clergyperson, (2) in their spiritual and professional capacity, (3) with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Citing the modern, expansive view of the privilege outlined in Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 506 and Supreme Court dicta in Trammel v. United States, the court reasoned that the privilege is not limited to the traditional one-on-one confessional model. However, for the privilege to apply in a group setting with third parties present, their presence must be "essential to and in furtherance of the communication." Because the district court failed to develop a sufficient record or make specific findings on this issue, particularly regarding DiLucente's role in the session, its order is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this newly articulated standard.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the clergy-communicant privilege in the Third Circuit and adopts a modern, expansive interpretation that moves beyond the historical 'priest-penitent' model to cover broader spiritual counseling, including group and family sessions. By setting a specific test for the presence of third parties—that their presence be 'essential to and in furtherance of the communication'—the court provides a framework for lower courts to balance the search for truth against the need to foster confidential spiritual relationships. This ruling influences how federal courts handle privilege claims in increasingly common non-traditional counseling contexts and aligns the privilege's scope with that of the attorney-client privilege.
Unlock the full brief for In re Grand Jury Investigation