"You're asking this court to open a party's psychiatric file in front of a seated jury," the judge said, "and you didn't bring the case law with you today." "Your Honor, if the court would grant a short recess—" "California Evidence Code section 1014," Zoya said, before the judge could answer, "establishes psychotherapist-patient privilege as one of the most rigorously protected in this state — specifically because the alternative, the fear that private care could later be weaponized in open court, discourages people from seeking help at all." She looked at Harrison, not unkindly. "I have the citation memorized. I'd be happy to save the court the recess." The judge almost smiled. Didn't, quite. "Counsel," he said to Harrison, "do you have any authority establishing that a party's disclosed mental health treatment, absent a specific showing of professional deficiency, is independently admissible for the purpose you're arguing?" "We believe—" "Yes or no, counsel." A pause.
Read more