I was just having a discussion on whether or not a confession or anything said in confidence to a preacher of your church is admissable as evidence in court?
It’s admissable – if you can get the priest to testify.
However, there is a principle of a confession being privileged, so the court cannot compel the priest to say anything. It is also unlikely in the extreme that a Catholic priest would be willing to testify about anything said in the confessional; the point of the confessional is that it’s just between you, the priest, and God.
o.k., so it’s admissable, but forceable… does this go for all religions (i.e. talks with your spiritual advisor/counsel in a private manner)?
I believe so.
And let me point out that admissable in this context is highly theoretical. There’s practically no likelihood of a member of the clergy would reveal anything said to him in confidence. However, if by some remote chance he decided to, then the court could listen to his evidence.
You know, on second thought, I realized I was probably wrong.
The defense would argue that the defendant believed the confession to the priest was privileged, and the judge would probably rule to prevent the testimony. The priest could only testify if it was something said outside of the confessor relationship (e.g., if he heard the guy confess at the church social).
IANAL, but I was always under the impression that a priest or minister is viewed in the same way as a lawyer or psychiatrist: priveleged communication, inadmissable in court.
Well, several years ago, I read one of Harry Kemelman’s Rabbi Small mysteries, and a kid who’s accused of a crime is talking to Rabbi Small in jail. The kid says, “Anything I tell you is confidential, right?” Rabbi Small tells him, essentially, “Guess again. A rabbi is not a priest, and I’m not bound by any vow of confidentiality. If you tell me you’re guilty, I’ll tell the police.”
I don’t know that all rabbis (or even most) would take the same approach, but this is certainly an indication that not ALL clergy view confidentiality as an absolute right to be observed under all circumstances.
In the U.S., the admissability of clergy confidencies is a matter of state law. For example Section 4505 of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules provides:
Your state’s law may vary.
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia has a long article about it and how secular law at that time dealt with it: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm
Billdo’s response is directly on target. Private communications with a clergyman are privileged, and the privilege is in the control of the person who talked to the clergyman.
This does not mean that everything ever said to a clergyman under any circumstances is privileged; ather there has to be some indication that it was meant as a confidential communication. This is true both of the rules denominations impose on clergymen to keep communications private and the rules observed by courts to keep such communications privileged. In the old Alfred Hitchcock film I Confess a murderer taunts Montgomery Clift that he confessed his crime to him and Clift cannot go to the police and tell them. It seems likely that both the Church and the court would say that this second communication was not privileged. (IIRC, other people heard what the killer said to Clift, so it was moot point anyway).
During the O. J. Simpson murder trial there was an attempt by the prosecution to use a prison employee as a witness. Simpson had reportedly blurted something out loudly while speaking to Rosie Greer, who had come to “counsel” him. Judge Ito ruled that the principle of privileged communication covered this as whatever Simpson had shouted was, presumably, shouted at Greer. He was very possibly wrong in this ruling, but it is an indicator of the lengths courts go to preserve this principle.
But, I do believe a priest can refuse absolution unless the person goes and confesses to authorities, correct?
That may be true, but as far as the courts are concerned, that is a private arrangement between the priest and the speaker. If this convinces the speaker to confess to the police, great. If not, the fact that the priest is unhappy with the situation has no relevance on whether the court may hear the testimony.
–Cliffy
Court case in Mississippi last year:
Episcopal priest counsels Mr. & Mrs. X in their home; tapes conversation (with permission of Mr. X). Mrs. X caught on tape confessing to affair.
Mr. X uses said tape in divorce court; Mrs. X denied custody of children based on taped conversation.
Mrs. X sues Episcopal priest & Dioces of Mississippi, loses case. IIRC it went to the State Supreme Court and they ruled that the conversation was NOT confidential.
I think there is a good possibility that if you “confess” to a priest or minister that you are about to commit a serious crime, the minister is supposed to warn the police.
I don’t do any litigation, so I’m just going from what I remember from my Evidence subject at uni.
In Australia (or Queensland at lease) the only legally protected privilege is legal professional privilege. Therefore, theoretically at least, communications between the accuses and clergy, doctors, psycologists etc. are admissable in court.
-Bubba.
From the rabbi’s response and my own religious (Mormon) experience, it appears that the confidentiality expected of the clergy is dependent on the variety of clergy.
For instance, Mormon bishops are expected to report to authorities if a serious felony (child abuse, murder, etc.) has been committed, or if they have reason to believe that it is in danger of happening. Confidentiality is not an end unto itself, but a means to resolve a problem, and if the problem in question is more serious than the breach of confidentiality, so be it.
Depends on state law, but in most states you would probably be correct.
–Cliffy
Interesting case, but not particularly on point. When the dispute is between two parties to the conversation, then by definition the conversation was not confidential.
–Cliffy
Mrs. X’s argument was that her conversation was said in confidence to the priest. It was found to be admissable as evidence in court.
Are you saying that since Mr. X was also hearing the conversation, she couldn’t argue that it was a “confidential confession”? Hmm. Now I see.
Another tidbit from this case: Mr. X was the sitting Governor at the time of the taping.
Yep. Although spouses are usually bound by privilege, in general no privilege survives a dispute between the speaker and the person otherwise bound. Since Mrs. X blabbed to Mr. X information relevant to a (later) dispute between them, it wasn’t privileged. As far as the law is concerned, that’s the same as saying it over a loudspeaker in a crowded room in which her priest or lawyer happen to be present. Once she makes the information unsecret, it is no longer secret, period.
Heh.
–Cliffy