Background

• Dietrich pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to thirteen years’ initial confinement plus ten years’ extended supervision.
• Prior to trial, Dietrich moved for in camera review of B.T.’s counseling records; the trial court denied the motion as the records were privileged.
• At sentencing, B.T.’s therapist testified about PTSD, nightmares, hospitalizations for suicide ideation, and effects on relationships and trust.
• Dietrich argued the denial of in camera review prevented him from challenging the therapist’s testimony; the court allowed the testimony, weighing it as it saw fit.
• Dietrich filed post-conviction and sought resentencing; Wisconsin appellate and Supreme Courts denied relief; the district court later denied habeas relief but granted a certificate of appealability on the in camera issue.
• The sole federal question on appeal was whether the trial court’s denial of in camera review violated due process under Ritchie; the court affirmed the district court’s denial.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (standard for in camera review of privileged records; materiality showing required)
• Robertson, 661 N.W.2d 105 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (need material, relevant, helpful evidence for in camera review)
• Davis v. Litscher, 290 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2002) (plausible showing of materiality required for in camera review)
• Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (compulsory process/due process; privilege not absolute; remand for review if material)
• Renusch v. Berghuis, 75 F. App’x 415 (6th Cir. 2003) (articulates Ritchie standard for privilege/evidence materiality)
• Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (materiality framing for exculpatory evidence)