United States v. Roy Lee Hayes
227 F. 3d 578, 54 Fed. R. Serv. 954, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23197 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal psychotherapist/patient testimonial privilege, established under Fed.R.Evid. 501, does not contain a "dangerous patient" exception that permits a psychotherapist to testify against a patient in criminal proceedings regarding threats made during therapy. This privilege is distinct from a psychotherapist's professional "duty to protect" identifiable third parties, which may require disclosure but not compelled testimony in a criminal trial.
Facts:
- Roy Lee Hayes worked for the United States Postal Service for his entire adult life, aside from military service.
- In July 1996, Veda Odie became Hayes's postmaster, leading to regular interactions between them.
- Beginning in 1997, Hayes exhibited erratic behavior at work, including periods of inconsolable depression.
- On February 9, 1998, Hayes sought professional help at the Veterans Administration Mountain Home Hospital (MHH), where he informed Dr. Dianne Hansen of a desire to kill Odie.
- MHH released Hayes on February 18 and again on February 26, despite his repeated homicidal inclinations, with doctors concluding he could control himself.
- On March 10, 1998, Hayes met with social worker James Edward Van Dyke at the Veterans Center and revealed a plan to murder Odie, after Van Dyke advised him of a duty to warn. Van Dyke concluded Hayes was not a serious threat.
- On March 24, 1998, Dr. Hansen discontinued Hayes’s psychotropic medications, leading to increased anxiety and a decrease in self-restraint.
- On March 31, 1998, Hayes outlined in great detail his plan to kill Odie to Van Dyke, who again advised him that serious threats could not be kept confidential. Van Dyke took no further action that evening.
- The next day, after consulting a supervisor and legal counsel, Van Dyke warned Odie of the threat Hayes posed.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon receiving Van Dyke’s warning, Veda Odie contacted Postal Inspector Terrance Vlug.
- Postal Inspector Vlug requested and received Hayes’s medical records from Van Dyke.
- On April 3, 1998, Vlug filed a criminal complaint against Hayes, charging him with threatening a federal official under 18 U.S.C. § 115.
- A grand jury subsequently issued a three-count indictment against Hayes for his alleged threatening remarks to psychotherapists.
- Hayes filed a motion in the federal district court to dismiss the indictment and suppress his medical records and psychotherapists' testimony, asserting the psychotherapist/patient privilege.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissing two counts of the indictment but denying the motion for the third count related to Van Dyke’s disclosure, believing it was the "only means" of averting harm.
- The federal district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, but went further by ordering the suppression of any testimony by Van Dyke and dismissing the entire case, concluding that Van Dyke's disclosure was not "the only means of averting harm" as required by United States v. Glass.
- The government timely appealed the district court’s dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 psychotherapist/patient testimonial privilege under Fed.R.Evid. 501 include a "dangerous patient" exception that permits a psychotherapist to testify against a patient in criminal proceedings regarding threats made during therapy, even when the therapist has a professional duty to warn third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, Circuit Judge
No, the federal psychotherapist/patient testimonial privilege does not include a "dangerous patient" exception that permits a psychotherapist to testify against a patient in criminal proceedings regarding threats made during therapy. The court reasoned that recognizing such an exception would severely undermine the "atmosphere of confidence and trust" essential for effective psychotherapy, as patients would be deterred from open dialogue if they feared their statements could lead to criminal prosecution. This chilling effect would disserve the public good of improving mental health, which the Supreme Court emphasized in Jaffee v. Redmond as "a public good of transcendent importance." The court clarified that the Jaffee footnote 19, which mentioned situations where the privilege "must give way," referred to a psychotherapist's professional "duty to protect" identifiable third parties (e.g., by warning them or initiating involuntary hospitalization proceedings), not a duty to testify in criminal trials. The court found little correlation between a therapist's actions to prevent harm and a court's decision on testimonial privilege. It also rejected the Tenth Circuit's United States v. Glass approach, which linked the exception to the therapist's standard of care, deeming it unsound and leading to inconsistent results, and holding that the scope of a federal privilege should not depend on state professional conduct standards. Furthermore, the court rejected the government's "constructive waiver" argument, stating that merely informing a patient of a "duty to protect" does not constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the privilege to allow testimony in criminal proceedings, especially for patients with serious mental disorders. The court held that United States v. Snelenberger was no longer good law to the extent it implied the federal privilege ceased once a state "duty to protect" attached.
Dissenting - Boggs, Circuit Judge
Yes, a psychotherapist or social worker should be allowed to testify in court regarding a patient's threats when the patient has been specifically informed that such communications will not be kept confidential. Judge Boggs argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaffee v. Redmond applied to "confidential communications," and when a social worker like Van Dyke explicitly informs a patient that threats will not be kept confidential, the basis for that confidentiality is removed. He noted that Van Dyke had warned Hayes multiple times that his threats to kill Odie would not be confidential, and Hayes continued to detail his plans afterward. The dissent found this "more than ample notice" to negate any reasonable expectation of privacy, suggesting that the fact therapists didn't use "magic words" about testifying in court specifically shouldn't be decisive. He contended that the majority's rule would allow criminals to "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," which is not required by common law or "reason and experience." The dissent also questioned Van Dyke's credentials, noting Jaffee specifically referred to a "licensed social worker."
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strength of the federal psychotherapist/patient privilege, particularly in criminal contexts, by explicitly rejecting a "dangerous patient" exception for testimonial purposes. It clearly distinguishes between a therapist's professional ethical duty to protect third parties (which may involve disclosure outside of court) and the legal testimonial privilege that prevents compelled testimony in criminal proceedings. The ruling prioritizes the therapeutic relationship's confidentiality to encourage individuals to seek mental health treatment, viewing this societal benefit as outweighing the evidentiary needs of criminal prosecution in these specific circumstances. Future cases will likely cite Hayes to argue for broad protection of patient-therapist communications, especially when a patient's statements, even if threatening, are made in the context of seeking help for mental illness.
