Quick Summary
A father (defendant) and a daughter (plaintiff) were subpoenaed in separate cases to testify against their child and father, respectively. They appealed district court decisions rejecting their claims of a parent-child testimonial privilege under Rule 501. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was tasked with deciding whether to recognize this new privilege.
The court decided against creating such a privilege, citing an absence of legal precedent and policy considerations better suited for legislative resolution. Consequently, it upheld both subpoenas requiring parental testimony.
Facts of the Case
Two consolidated appeals concerning a proposed parent-child testimonial privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the first scenario, a father (defendant) in the Virgin Islands was subpoenaed to provide testimony against his son (plaintiff), who was the target of a grand jury investigation.
The father, a former FBI agent, believed the grand jury would inquire about confidential conversations with his son and sought to quash the subpoena based on a claimed parent-child privilege. In the second scenario from Delaware, a daughter (plaintiff) was subpoenaed to testify against her father (defendant) in relation to his alleged involvement in an interstate kidnapping. The daughter and her parents argued for a parent-child privilege to avoid her testimony.
The district courts in each case rejected the existence of a parent-child privilege, leading to appeals by the subpoenaed parties. The cases were consolidated because they presented the same legal question regarding the recognition of a parent-child privilege.
Procedural History
- The father in the Virgin Islands case moved to quash the subpoena, claiming a parent-child privilege under Rule 501.
- The district court denied the motion to quash, stating that no such privilege exists and referencing that no federal appellate court had recognized such a privilege.
- In Delaware, a motion to quash the daughter’s subpoena was filed on similar grounds.
- The district court denied the motion, ordering the daughter to testify after an in camera ex parte proceeding with the government.
- Both decisions were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the federal judiciary should recognize a parent-child testimonial privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Rule of Law
Testimonial privileges are governed by common law principles as interpreted by courts, in light of reason and experience, and are generally disfavored because they obstruct the truth-seeking function of legal proceedings.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Third Circuit analyzed whether a parent-child testimonial privilege should be recognized under Rule 501. The court emphasized that privileges are disfavored because they limit the judiciary’s quest for truth. It examined precedents from other federal appellate courts and state supreme courts, all of which had rejected such a privilege.
The court also highlighted that neither reason nor experience supported creating a new privilege and that policy considerations surrounding family privacy should be addressed by Congress rather than the judiciary. Ultimately, the court declined to recognize a parent-child privilege, maintaining consistency with other jurisdictions and respecting the principle that every person owes their evidence to public justice.
Conclusion
The court affirmed the district courts’ rulings that no parent-child privilege exists under Rule 501 and upheld the subpoenas requiring testimony from the father in the Virgin Islands case and the daughter in the Delaware case.
Dissenting Opinions
Judge Mansmann dissented in part, advocating for a limited parent-child privilege under specific circumstances where confidential communications are made for seeking parental advice and guidance. She would have reversed the order denying the motion to quash in the Virgin Islands matter but agreed with denying the establishment of a general privilege in the Delaware matters.
Key Takeaways
- Testimonial privileges are narrowly construed and generally disfavored as they can impede justice.
- No federal appellate court or state supreme court has recognized a parent-child testimonial privilege.
- Policy considerations surrounding family privacy may be better addressed by legislative action rather than judicial creation of new privileges.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?