United States v. Robert Allen Romo

Robert Romo appeals his conviction for threatening the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871 (a). Although he confessed to a licensed counselor that he made such a threat, he now claims that the counselor’s trial testimony was admitted in violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. We conclude that the testimony was not privileged because Romo’s statements to the counselor did not occur during the course of diagnosis or treatment. We are not persuaded that Romo’s challenge to the testimony of the Director of Mail Analysis for the White House merits reversal, nor does Romo’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence withstand scrutiny in light of the substantial evidence of his knowing and willful threats against the President.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a confession Romo made during a meeting with Donald LaPlante, the Program Director at the Dawson County Adult Correction and Detention Facility where Romo was incarcerated. LaPlante is a licensed professional counselor whose job included providing inmates with psychological counseling and a host of other duties, ranging from arranging social events to providing classes and acting as a case manager. Before…

concurring.

I concur in the result but I must take exception to one point of analysis in the majority’s opinion. It is not necessary to reach the issue of patient-psychotherapist privilege to decide this case. Overwhelming evidence that Romo violated 18 U.S.C. § 871 by threatening the life of the President was presented at trial, including the testimony of a Secret Service Agent that Romo confessed to sending a threatening letter and a signed transport sheet on which Romo repeated his threat against the President, signed his name, and stamped his thumb print. The therapist’s testimony only repeated the Secret Service Agent’s testimony. If admitting the therapist’s testimony was error, it was harmless error. See United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 510 (9th Cir.1997). Nevertheless, the majority opinion reaches the issue of whether the therapist’s testimony should have been excluded as privileged. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Romo’s conversation with his therapist LaPlante was not privileged.

The Supreme Court affirmed a patient-psychotherapist privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 , 116 S.Ct.…

413 F.3d 1044 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Allen ROMO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-30131. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 15, 2005. Filed July 5, 2005. Robin B. Hammond, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for the appellant. James E. Seykora, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-00134-SEH. Before: B. FLETCHER, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: 1 Robert Romo appeals his conviction for threatening the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871 (a). Although he confessed to a licensed counselor that he made such a threat, he now claims that the counselor's trial testimony was admitted in violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. We conclude that the testimony was not privileged because Romo's statements to the counselor did not occur during the course of diagnosis or treatment. We are not persuaded that Romo's challenge to the testimony of the Director of Mail Analysis for the White House…