Testimonial privilege and the problem of death: The Vincent Foster case and beyond

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 639-648

  Behnke, Stephen H ^a,b,c,d  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS MENTAL HEALTH CENTER   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d c/o MMHC ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DEATH; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LAW; MEDICAL RECORD; PRIVACY; PSYCHOTHERAPY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; WITNESS;

CONFIDENTIALITY; CRIMINAL LAW; DEATH; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOTHERAPY; SUICIDE; UNITED STATES; WILLS;

EID: 0032443780     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
2. Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 2081 (1998)
3. For the application of this tripartite distinction to the doctrine of informed consent, see Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, and Meisel A: Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, at 3
4. Aspects of the "Definitions" section of this article have previously appeared in Behnke SH, Hilliard JT: The Essentials of Massachusetts Mental Health Law. WW Norton Co., 1998; Behnke SH, Preis JJ, Bates TR: The Essentials of California Mental Health Law. New York: WW Norton Co., 1998; and in Stephen H. Behnke's legal column for the Massachusetts Psychological Association Quarterly, March 1998
5. Aspects of the "Definitions" section of this article have previously appeared in Behnke SH, Hilliard JT: The Essentials of Massachusetts Mental Health Law. WW Norton Co., 1998; Behnke SH, Preis JJ, Bates TR: The Essentials of California Mental Health Law. New York: WW Norton Co., 1998; and in Stephen H. Behnke's legal column for the Massachusetts Psychological Association Quarterly, March 1998
6. For a discussion of Rule 501's history and reasons behind its less specific language, see Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 13-16 (1996)
7. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 at 331 (1950) (quoting Wigmore, Treatise on the Anglo-American system of Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2192 (3d ed 1942))
8. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 at 50 (1980) (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 234 (1960) (J. Franfurter, dissenting))
9. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 9-10 (1996) (quoting Trammel v. United States 445 U.S. 40 at 51 (1980))
10. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 10 (1980) (footnote omitted from text)
11. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 11 (1980)
12. Id.
13. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 11 (1980) (footnote omitted from text)
14. Trammel, 445 U.S. 40 at 51 (1980)
15. Jaffe v. Redmond, 51 F.3d 1346 at 1357 (7th Cir. 1995)
16. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 18 (1996) (quoting Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 at 393 (1981))
17. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2086 (1998)
18. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2086 (1998)
19. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2087 (1998)
20. In re Sealed Case, 124 F.3d 230 (1997)
21. In re Sealed Case, 124 F.3d at 233-235 (1997)
22. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2087 (1998) (citing Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 at 393 (1981), and Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 at 17-18 (1996))
23. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2087 (1998)
24. Jaffe, 518 U.S. at 18 (1996)
25. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2087 (1998)
26. Swidler & Berlin, 118 S. Ct. at 2088 (1998)