Petitioner, V

No. 19-____ In The Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ ROBERT A. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado ____________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ____________________ <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Ned R. Jaeckle </li><li style="flex:1">Jeffrey L. Fisher </li></ul>COLORADO STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road 1300 Broadway, Suite 300 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Denver, CO 80203 Meaghan VerGow Kendall Turner Counsel of Record O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 383-5204 <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] </a>iQUESTION PRESENTED Whether, and to what extent, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover potentially exculpatory mental health records held by a private party, notwithstanding a state privilege law to the contrary. iSTATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS Perez v. People, Colorado Supreme Court No. 19SC587 (Feb. 24, 2020) (available at 2020 WL 897586) (denying Perez’s petition for a writ of certiorari) People v. Perez, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 16CA1180 (June 13, 2019) (affirming trial court judgment) People v. Perez, Colorado District Court No. 14CR4593 (Apr. 7, 2016) (granting motion to quash subpoena seeking mental health records) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................ i STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS ....... i PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ........... 1 OPINIONS BELOW.................................................. 1 JURISDICTION........................................................ 1 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS .................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................ 8 A. State high courts and federal courts of appeals are openly split on the question presented................................................... 9 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">B. The </li><li style="flex:1">question </li><li style="flex:1">presented </li><li style="flex:1">recurs </li></ul>frequently and is extremely important.. 16 C. This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve the conflict............................................... 19 D. The Colorado court’s ruling is incorrect. 22 CONCLUSION........................................................ 35 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page APPENDIX A Colorado Supreme Court Order (Feb. 24, 2020).................................................... 1a APPENDIX B Colorado Court of Appeals Opinion (June 13, 2019) .................................................. 2a APPENDIX C Trial Court Order (Apr. 7, 2016).................................................... 23a APPENDIX D Trial Court Transcript (Apr. 7, 2016).................................................... 27a APPENDIX E Colorado Revised Statute § 13-90-107 ................. 49a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Advisory Op. to the House of Representatives, 469 A.2d 1161 (R.I. 1983) .................................. 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).........................................20, 22 Burns v. State, 968 A.2d 1012 (Del. 2009).............................11, 14 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).................................27, 28, 29 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).......................................18, 27 Commonwealth v. Barroso, 122 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. 2003) .........................passim Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290 (Pa. 1992)................................... 12 Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1983)...................................7, 28, 29 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)............................................ 27 Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974).................................26, 30, 31 Dietrich v. Smith, 701 F. 3d 1192 (7th Cir. 2012)......................11, 20 Goldsmith v. State, 651 A.2d 866 (Md. 1995).................................... 12 Hathaway v. State, 399 P.3d 625 (Wyo. 2017) .................................. 10 Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)............................................ 24 vTABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) In re A and M, 61 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div. 1978)................................................................... 18 In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2011)................................ 12 In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992)........................11, 15 Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).......................................2, 16, 35 Kinder v. White, 609 F. App’x 126 (4th Cir. 2015) ....................... 12 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)............................................ 22 Love v. Freeman, 188 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 1999).............................. 17 Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995).............................. 20 N.G. v. Superior Court, 291 P.3d 328 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012) .................. 9 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987).......................................passim People v. Adamski, 497 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) ............. 34 People v. Foggy, 521 N.E.2d 86 (Ill. 1988).................................... 12 People v. Hammon, 938 P.2d 986 (Cal. 1997).................................... 12 People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994).................10, 13, 14 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000).............................................. 18 R.S. v. Thompson ex rel. Cty. of Maricopa, 454 P.3d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).................. 10 Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957).............................................. 26 State v. Askins, 2012 WL 2579532 (N.J. Super. Ct. July 5, 2012)................................................................... 21 State v. Blackwell, 801 S.E.2d 713 (S.C. 2017) ...........................10, 15 State v. Blake, 63 P.3d 56 (Utah 2002).................................13, 20 State v. Buelow, 941 N.W.2d 594 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019)............... 20 State v. Cressey, 628 A.2d 696 (N.H. 1993) .............................10, 29 State v. Famiglietti, 817 So.2d 901 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).................... 12 State v. Fay, 167 A.3d 897 (Conn. 2017) ................................ 10 State v. Gagne, 612 A.2d 899 (N.H. 1992) .................................. 14 State v. Green, 646 N.W.2d 298 (Wis. 2002).............................. 10 State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1992) ............................. 11 State v. J.G., 619 A.2d 232 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)................................................................... 12 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) State v. Kelly, 545 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 1988) .............................. 15 State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) ........................10, 15 State v. Rehkop, 908 A.2d 488 (Vt. 2006) ..................................... 11 State v. Spath, 581 N.W.2d 123 (N.D. 1998).............................. 13 State v. Trammell, 435 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. 1989).............................. 11 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)............................................ 29 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999)............................................ 22 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988)............................................ 32 Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)............................................ 30 Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (2017)........................................ 21 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).............................................. 22 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)............................................ 20 United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C.Va. 1807) ............................. 26 United States v. Ford, 550 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2008)............................ 22 United States v. Hach, 162 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1998).............................. 13 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 2006)............................ 12 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).....................................passim United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)............................................ 27 United States v. Schrader, 716 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D. W.Va. 2010)............. 13 United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1992).......................................33, 34 United States v. Veltman, 6 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1993).............................. 21 Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).........................................24, 27 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)............................................ 14 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1257........................................................ 1 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(e) ........................... 17 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(f)............................ 17 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(g)............................. 5 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(A)................ 17 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:84A-21(h)............................... 18 OTHER AUTHORITIES McCormick on Evidence (8th ed. Jan. 2020 update) ........................................................... 9, 18 Bernard Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History (1971)............................. 26 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence (8th ed. Nov. 2019 update) .................. 9 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1st ed. 1765–1769) ............... 25 C.J.S. Homicide (Mar. 2020 update) ...................... 21 Clifford S. Fishman, Defense Access to a Prosecution Witness’s Psychotherapy or Counseling Records, 86 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2007).................................................................. 17 Edward J. Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence: Evidentiary Privileges (3d ed. 2020 supp.)............................ 35 Nat’l Institute on Mental Health, Mental Illness (updated Feb. 2019), <a href="/goto?url=https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistic" target="_blank">https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistic </a>s/mental-illness.shtml. ...................................... 16 Peter Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 71 (1974).................... 25 Trial of John Udall, Complete Collection of State Trials (T. Howell ed. 1816) .................24, 25 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Del. Dec. of Rts. § 14 (1776).................................... 25 Mass. Dec. of Rts. art. XII (1780) ........................... 25 Md. Dec. of Rts. art. XIX (1776).............................. 25 N.C. Dec. of Rts. art. VII (1776) ............................. 25 N.H. Bill of Rts. art. XV (1783)............................... 25 N.J. Const. art. XVI (1776) ..................................... 25 Pa. Dec. of Rts. art. IX (1776)................................. 25 U.S. Const. amend. VI ........................................ 1, 31 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ..................................... 2 Va. Dec. of Rts. art. 8 (1776)................................... 25 Vt. Dec. of Rts. art X (1777).................................... 25 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Robert Perez respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court. OPINIONS BELOW The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision denying petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari is published at 2020 WL 897586 and reprinted in the Appendix to the Petition (“Pet. App.”) at 1a. The decision of the court of appeals is unpublished but reprinted at Pet. App. 2a–22a. The decision of the trial court is unpublished but reprinted at Pet. App. 23a–26a. JURISDICTION The Supreme Court of Colorado denied discretionary review of petitioner’s appeal on February 24, 2020. Pet. App. 1a. On March 19, 2020, this Court issued an order automatically extending the time to file a petition for certiorari to 150 days from the date of the lower court judgment. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him” and “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. 2 The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The relevant provision of Colorado law is reproduced in the appendix. Pet. App. 49a–68a. INTRODUCTION When a criminal defendant seeks potentially exculpatory information that is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege, a court must decide which prevails: the defendant’s interest in accessing that material, or the government’s policy interest embodied in the privilege. Both sides of the ledger are important: On the defendant’s side, his constitutional rights to due process, compulsory process, and confrontation may all be compromised if he is denied access to the information. On the government’s side, disclosing otherwise privileged information could compromise important public objectives, including “the provision of appropriate treatment for individuals suffering the effects of a mental or emotional problem.” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 11 (1996). Where the evidence is in the hands of the State and the privilege law at issue does not “absolute[ly] . . . shield [the] files from all eyes,” this Court has held that a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to due process trumps a privilege. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57–58 (1987). That is not to say that a defendant automatically has access to any privileged information he claims may assist in his defense. Rather, a trial court must review the requested records 3in camera to determine if they contain material, exculpatory evidence, and must provide the records to the defense if so. Id. at 59–60. This approach serves the defendant’s “interest without destroying the [State’s] need to protect the confidentiality” of the records. Id. at 61. But this Court’s decision in Ritchie left much unresolved. First, it did not address the question whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights related to presenting a defense trump a state law forbidding the discovery of records held by a private party. Second, it did not address how Ritchie’s rule applies where a state privilege law is absolute. Third, Ritchie did not resolve whether constitutional rights other than due process—specifically, the rights to compulsory process and confrontation—might also sometimes require in camera inspection. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 51–58; see id. at 61–66 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); id. at 66–72 (Brennan, J., dissenting); id. at 72–78 (Stevens, J., dissenting). This indeterminacy has led state high courts and federal courts of appeals to disagree over how Ritchie applies in the context of privately held psychotherapy records. Thirteen state courts and one federal court of appeals require a trial court to inspect privately held psychotherapy records in camera if the records probably or plausibly contain exculpatory evidence. Conversely, seven state courts and two federal courts of appeals flat-out prohibit a trial court from inspecting such records in camera. And two States allow in camera inspection only where the defendant can provide—before the requested inspection—evidence 4demonstrating that the requested materials are essential to the defense. This case presents an opportunity to resolve this entrenched disagreement among the state high courts and federal courts of appeals. Before being tried for murder following his wife’s death, petitioner sought discovery of his wife’s mental health records from her private healthcare provider. His defense was that his wife died by suicide, and he sought her therapy records to support that defense. But the trial court quashed petitioner’s subpoena, declining to review the records in camera because the state privilege for psychotherapy records was absolute. That decision was affirmed on appeal, with the appellate court reasoning that Ritchie did not apply because petitioner’s wife’s mental health records were held by a private provider and were absolutely protected under state law. Had petitioner sought the same records in most other jurisdictions, the trial court would have been required to review them in camera to determine if they contained material, exculpatory evidence. But because petitioner was prosecuted in Colorado, he was denied even the trial court’s in camera inspection of the requested records. This varied treatment of criminal defendants’ right to material, exculpatory evidence is intolerable, and only this Court can resolve it. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. In 2014, petitioner’s wife, Dennielle Perez, was found dead from a gunshot wound. The State of Colorado charged petitioner with first-degree murder. 5 Petitioner maintained that his wife had committed suicide. Pet. App. 4a. Petitioner served a pretrial subpoena on Kaiser Permanente, seeking his wife’s mental health records. Pet. App. 5a. Petitioner knew that Dennielle had sought therapy, but he did not know if she had been diagnosed with depression or had sought help for suicidal ideation. Id. at 12a. The prosecution moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that Dennielle’s mental health records were protected by Colorado’s psychotherapist-patient privilege and that the representative of her estate had not waived the privilege. Pet. App. 5a–6a; see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(g). Petitioner explained that he needed the records “to present an adequate defense and to be able to support his conclusion that this is a suicide.” Pet. App. 33a. He also explained why he believed the records would include exculpatory information: He knew that Dennielle was sad, that she had sought therapy from the subpoenaed provider, and that depression may have led to her suicide. Id. at 12a, 31a–32a. The trial court concluded that mental health records were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege, that the privilege prohibited pretrial discovery of information within its scope, and that the only basis for authorizing disclosure of such records was express or implied waiver (which did not occur here). Pet. App. 25a–26a. The trial court refused to conduct even an in camera inspection of the records to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence. It simply quashed the subpoena. Id. at 26a. 62. At trial, the prosecution’s theory was that petitioner shot his wife because he had recently discovered that she had been having an affair with another man. Pet. App. 4a. The defense theory was that Dennielle committed suicide because she was depressed and afraid that petitioner would release details of the couple’s sexual activities, bringing shame on her and her family. Id. A defense expert—a crime scene and blood pattern analyst formerly with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation—concluded that Dennielle died from a selfinflicted gunshot wound. Pet. App. 14a. And while Colorado’s coroner/medical examiner believed Dennielle’s death was more likely a homicide, he testified that he could not rule out suicide. Id. Both the prosecution and defense presented evidence that Dennielle appeared sad to her family and friends. Pet. App. 3a. Witnesses testified that Den- nielle had discussed suicide but said she would never do it; her brother also testified that Dennielle had told him shortly before her death that she had wandered away from the house after taking a handful of sleeping pills. Pet. App. 13a–14a. But the jury never heard whether she had been diagnosed with depression or sought treatment for suicidal ideation—information that her mental health records could have revealed.

Petitioner, V

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support