United States v. Chase
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
340 F.3d 978 (2003)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Steven Chase (defendant) was treated by psychiatrist Kay Dieter. During a counseling session, Chase told Dieter that he had thought about injuring or killing two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. Dieter was concerned that Chase would act on the threats and disclosed the threats to the local police. After Chase made threats against the same FBI agents a second time, Dieter contacted the agents and warned them of the threat. Chase was arrested and tried for threatening the agents. Over Chase’s objection, Dieter testified at trial regarding her conversations with Chase in their counseling sessions. The district court ruled that the psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege did not apply, because Chase made credible threats against a third party. Chase was convicted by the jury. On appeal, Chase argued that Dieter’s testimony violated the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court of appeals initially affirmed the conviction and the district court’s evidentiary ruling. Chase petitioned for rehearing en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Graber, J.)
Concurrence (Kleinfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.