United States v. Payton-O'brien and Ravenscraft
2017 CCA LEXIS 424
| N.M.C.C.A. | 2017Background
- J.M. (petitioner/victim) had extensive mental health records; accused (RPI) faced general court-martial on sexual assault and related charges.
- Defense moved to compel production or in camera review of J.M.’s psychiatric and outpatient therapy records; military judge ordered in camera review and then identified ~75 pages for potential release.
- Military judge concluded due process required piercing the psychotherapist-patient privilege (relying on a now-deleted “constitutional exception”) and planned limited release; VLC (victim’s lawyer) petitioned for extraordinary relief.
- Congress and the President amended Mil. R. Evid. 513 (2015 NDAA & Executive Order) to remove the constitutional-exception (former 513(d)(8)) and tighten in camera review to four specific prongs.
- The appellate court granted mandamus: set aside the military judge’s 513-based production order, restored records to privileged status, but held courts must protect an accused’s constitutional trial rights via tailored remedies when disclosure is constitutionally required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a military judge may order production/release of Mil. R. Evid. 513 privileged psychotherapist records absent an enumerated exception | J.M.: privilege is (nearly) absolute now; judge exceeded authority by invoking a constitutional exception | RPI/defense: constitutional due process and confrontation may require disclosure; judge may pierce privilege when necessary for a fair trial | Military judge may not order production unless one of the enumerated exceptions in 513(d) applies; the deleted constitutional-exception cannot be judicially revived |
| Whether the pre-2015 “constitutionally required” exception survives or can be applied despite NDAA/Exec. Order | J.M.: deletion of the constitutional exception forecloses judicial application | RPI: Constitution still supersedes evidentiary rules; courts must admit evidence when constitutionally required | The court cannot recreate an abolished exception; Congress/President intended to remove it; Custis prohibits courts from adding exceptions to military evidence rules |
| How to reconcile privilege with an accused’s constitutional rights (remedies if victim refuses waiver) | J.M.: privilege holder controls access; remedy is protection or abatement | RPI: where disclosure is constitutionally necessary, trial fairness requires access; otherwise accused’s rights suffer | If nondisclosure would violate constitution, military judge must craft remedies (not necessarily disclosure): options include striking/precluding testimony, dismissing charges, abating proceedings, or mistrial—tailored to the case |
| Standard/process for in camera review under current Mil. R. Evid. 513 | J.M.: privilege requires strict adherence to the four prongs before any review or disclosure | RPI: in camera review may be necessary to assess relevance to defense; judge may weigh due process needs | In camera review may occur only if the moving party meets the 513(e)(3) prongs (specific factual basis; meets an enumerated exception; not cumulative; reasonable efforts to obtain non-privileged info). If enumerated exceptions aren’t met but disclosure is constitutionally required, judge must use remedial measures rather than unilaterally resurrecting a deleted exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (privileges strictly construed)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Confrontation Clause may outweigh confidentiality rules)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (defendant’s right to present a complete defense limits evidentiary rules)
- United States v. Custis, 65 M.J. 366 (military courts cannot add exceptions to codified privileges)
- United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (evidentiary rules must yield to constitutional needs of an accused)
- United States v. Bowser, 74 M.J. 326 (remedies—dismissal—acceptable when discovery obligations are violated)
- United States v. Klemick, 65 M.J. 576 (test applied for in camera review prior to 513 amendments)