Notes

1. Bonnie J. Campbell, Preface to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPORT TO CONGRESS: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SEXUAL ASSAULT OR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS AND THEIR COUNSELORS: FINDINGS AND MODEL LEGISLATION (1995) [hereinafter REPORT TO CONGRESS]. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) enacted in 1994 included provisions directing the U.S. Attorney General to study and evaluate the manner in which states act to protect the confidentiality of communications between sexual assault or domestic violence victims and their counselors. In December 1995, the results of the study were released in this REPORT TO CONGRESS. Although the study focused specifically on sexual assault/ domestic violence victim-counselor privilege, many of its findings can be extended to counseling relationships involving victims of other crimes. A summary of the report can be found in the National Criminal Justice Reference Service’s Abstracts Database at www.ncjrs.gov/App/AbstractDB/AbstractDBSearch.aspx.

2. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1, Model Legislation, Absolute Privilege § 103. The model legislation applies only to sexual assault and domestic violence victims. Those references have been purposely excluded whenever language from the model is quoted to make it applicable to all crime victims; in practice, however, it may be necessary to limit the protection to victims of violent crime, because victims of some other crimes may not meet the legal criteria for privilege. “In conferring a privilege, lawmakers must assess whether the relationship meets the established criteria for privileged communications. That is, the communication originated in confidence, confidentiality is essential to the maintenance of the relationship, and the relationship is one that society deems worthy of protecting.” Mary Ann Largen, Confidentiality in the Sexual Assault Victim/Counselor Relationship, in RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT III: A RESEARCH HANDBOOK 214 (Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed., 1991).

3. For example, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-4430 (West 2000); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 52-146k (West 2001); 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/8-802.1 (2001); IOWA CODE § 915.20A (2001); MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 233, §§ 20J, K (Law. Co-op. 2001); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:84A-22.14 (West 2001); UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-3c-3 (2001); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 1-12-116 (Michie 2001).

4. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1, Model Legislation § 102(A). The terms “victim,” “victim counseling center,” and “victim counselor” are also defined.

5. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1295 (Pa. 1992).

6. Martha F. Davis and Susan J. Kraham, Protecting Women’s Welfare in the Face of Violence, 22 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1141, 1150–51 (1995), citing Michael J. Strube and Linda S. Barbour, The Decision to Leave an Abusive Relationship: Economic Dependence and Psychological Commitment, 45 J. OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAM. 785, 786 (1983).

7. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17 (1996) (citing the Ct. App., 51 F.3d, at 1358, n.19).

8. For example, ALA. CODE §§ 15-23-40–45 (2001); CAL. EVID. CODE §§ 1035–1036.2, 1037–1037.7 (Deering 2001); FLA. STAT. chs. 90.5035, .5036 (2000); IND. CODE ANN. §§ 35-37-6-1–11 (Michie 2000); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 16, §§ 53-A, -B (West 2000); MONT. CODE ANN. § 26-1-812 (2000); N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 31-25-1–6 (Michie 2001); 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6102 (2001), 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5945.1 (2001); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1614 (2001).

9. For example, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-4430 (2000); IOWA CODE § 915.20A (2001); N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:84A-22.13–.16 (West 2001).

10. The number of training hours required varies, ranging from 15 hours in Colorado to 40 hours in most of the states with counselor privilege laws on the books, including Alaska, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.

11. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1. The DOJ’s study that included most of the privilege laws currently in effect identified three degrees of privilege—absolute, semiabsolute, and qualified.

12. FLA. STAT. chs. 90.5035, .5036 (2000); 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6116 (2001).

13. ALASKA STAT. §§ 09.25.400, 12.45.049, 18.66.200–.250 (Michie 2001); HAW. R. EVID. 505.5; N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:84A-22.13–.16 (West 2001), N.J. R. EVID. 617.

14. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-4430 (2000); CAL. EVID. CODE §§ 1035–1036.2, 1037–1037.7 (Deering 2001); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 173-C:1–:10 (2000).

15. In re Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, 428 A.2d 126 (Pa. 1981).

16. Id. at 127.

17. Id. at 150.

18. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5945.1 (2001).

19. See Wilson, 602 A.2d at 1294, n.6.

20. People v. District Court of Denver, 719 P.2d 722 (Pa. 1986); People v. Foggy, 521 N.E.2d 86 (Ill. 1988).

21. In re Robert H., 509 A.2d 475 (Conn. 1986); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 617 N.E.2d 990 (Mass. 1993).

22. See Bishop, 617 N.E.2d at 997–98.

23. Commonwealth v. Fuller, 667 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 1996).

24. Commonwealth v. Tripolone, 681 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. Sup. Ct. 1997).

25. Two cases are currently pending: Commonwealth v. Neumeyer, 718 N.E.2d 869 (Mass. Ct. App. 1999), and Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 722 N.E.2d 25 (Mass. Ct. App. 2000).

26. For example, People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. Michigan v. Caruso, 115 S. Ct. 923 (1995).

27. See Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d at 574.

28. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 2.

29. People v. Foggy, 521 N.E.2d 86 (Ill. 1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1046 (1988).

30. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:84A-22.13 (West 2001).

31. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1, Model Legislation § 100.

32. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CODE OF CONDUCT, Standard 5.01 (Dec. 1992); AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION, CODE OF ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE A.3a (eff. July 1995).

33. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1, at 18.

34. Id. at 29.

35. MONT. CODE ANN. § 26-1-812 (2000).

36. An informal polling of victim policy advocates from five mid-Atlantic states was conducted at a Mid-Atlantic Regional Roundtable held at the offices of the National Center for Victims of Crime on January 14, 2000, in Arlington, Virginia.

37. GA. CODE ANN. § 24-9-107 (2000).

38. COLO. REV. STAT. § 13-90-209 (2000).

39. W. Murphy, Minimizing the Likelihood of Discovery of Victims’ Counseling Records and Other Personal Information in Criminal Cases: Massachusetts Gives a Nod to a Constitutional Right to Confidentiality, 32 NEW ENGLAND L. REV. 983 (1998).

40. Commonwealth v. Davis, 674 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1996).

41. REPORT TO CONGRESS, supra note 1, Model Legislation §§ 105, 106.

42. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 1.

43.. Id. at 8 (citing Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980)).

44. 8 JOHN H. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961).

45. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 15, 16.

46. Id. at 9.

47. Id. at 17, 18 (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 (1981)).