United States v. Ghane
673 F.3d 771
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ghane convicted of stockpiling, retaining, and possessing potassium cyanide as a chemical weapon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 229(a)(1), 229A(a)(1).
- Prior trial in 2010 ended in hung jury; convictions followed a retrial in 2010.
- Ghane's mental illness history and interactions with ER intake staff and treating psychiatrists formed part of the evidentiary context.
- Ghane admitted suicidal thoughts and stated cyanide available at his apartment; he refused to surrender cyanide.
- ER intake by Gluhovsky, a non-therapist, precededauthorization to contact police; police searched Ghane’s apartment and seized cyanide.
- Dr. Houghton treated Ghane and, after Ghane expressed threats toward unnamed government officials and stated access to chemicals, Ghane consented to reporting to authorities; this consent was later challenged as a waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness/overbreadth of the chemical weapon statute | Ghane argues §229F(7)(A) is vague/overbroad. | Ghane contends terms are imprecise and enable arbitrary enforcement. | Not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied. |
| Privilege: Gluhovsky ER intake statements | Gluhovsky's ER intake communications should be privileged. | Gluhovsky was not a licensed psychotherapist; privilege should apply. | Gluhovsky communications not privileged; district court did not err in admitting them. |
| Privilege: Dr. Houghton and dangerous patient exception | Dr. Houghton’s testimony should be privileged; no waiver. | A dangerous patient exception could justify disclosure. | No dangerous patient exception adopted; error admitted but harmless. |
| Waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege | Ghane consent waived privilege. | Consent was insufficient to waive rights. | Waiver invalid; cannot rely on Ghane's consent to justify admission. |
| Harmlessness of admission of Dr. Houghton’s testimony | Admission was harmless given substantial other admissible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (vagueness/fair notice in criminal statutes)
- United States v. Birbragher, 603 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2010) (two-pronged vagueness/overbreadth analysis)
- United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2002) (fair notice and arbitrary enforcement considerations)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (statutes must define offense with definite meaning; close cases allowed but not vagueness)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (psychotherapist-patient privilege framework; confidential communications)
- Hayes v. United States, 227 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (rejects dangerous patient exception to federal privilege)
- United States v. Auster, 517 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognition of possible exceptions to privilege)
- United States v. Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc; discussion of privilege scope)
- United States v. Glass, 133 F.3d 1356 (10th Cir. 1998) (dangerous patient exception analysis)
- United States v. Romo, 413 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005) (telepsychology privilege considerations)