WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) - A federal judge overturned a manslaughter conviction, saying conversations among Alcoholics Anonymous participants should not have been used as evidence because such exchanges are a form of confidential religious communication. U.S. District Judge Charles Brieant said treating AA meetings with less protection than any other form of religious communication, which carries assurances of confidentiality, is unconstitutional. The entire AA relationship, he wrote, “is anonymous and confidential.”
Paul Cox, 33, had been convicted of two counts of manslaughter for stabbing to death Laksman Rao Chervu and his wife, Shanta, in their home in 1988. Cox claimed he was in an alcoholic stupor when he broke into the home, where he had lived as a child. He did not know the couple. His trial featured testimony - some obtained by subpoena - from AA members who said Cox had discussed memories of the stabbings.
In his ruling Tuesday, Brieant said that, based on AA being considered a religion, disclosures of wrongs to fellow members should be protected by “a privilege granted to other religions similarly situated.” He also cited a state Court of Appeals finding that “adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization.” The prosecutor said the testimony was not privileged because “there was no evidence whatsoever that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious organization as required by statute, or that another member is a clergyman.”
This is one of those fun little catch-22s that make life so interesting for 12-steppers.
AA is not, and never has been, a religious organization. It’s true that there is a focus on God and on spirituality; however, the membership is encouraged to attend the religious institution of their choice and not to view AA as a religion.
I would be interested to know the state appellate court’s logic for declaring AA a religion.
AA is a church? I know a “higher power” is part of it, but I thought it was a voluntary not-for-profit treatment organization.
So this ruling treats telling fellow members of your “religion” the same as confessing to a Priest…interesting. If I am a member of the Church of Fight Club, and the first rule of Fight Club is that no one talks about Fight Club, and I tell another member of Fight Club that I killed someone, he or she cannot be compelled to testify against me if we argue strongly enough that our organization is a religion?
Or take a real religious organization - if I tell my fellow Knights of Columbus about my killing spree down at the lodge, are they prohibited from testifying then?
Baaaaaad precedent. You now have the courts determining what is and is not a “real” religion.
I can’t figure the judge’s logic on this one. Even assuming that AA is a religious organization, what’s the difference between confessing to a murder in AA and confessing in a Bible study class at church? Communications with priests, rabbis, ministers, etc. are priveleged; communications with people who happen to attend the same church as you do are not.
Someone, anyone, please help me to understand. From A.A.'s own website:
"Is A.A. a religious society?
A.A. is not a religious society, since it requires no definite religious belief as a condition of membership. Although it has been endorsed and approved by many religious leaders, it is not allied with any organization or sect. Included in its membership are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, members of other major religious bodies, agnostics, and atheists."
That’s a little bit disingenuous. I’ll have to go search FindLaw unless minty or SuaSponte beat me to it, but there was a recent court ruling involving this. A man with a DUI conviction was told that, as a condition of his parole, he would have to join A.A. He argued that, because A.A. requires a belief in a “higher power,” which he as an atheist did not have, that requiring him to join A.A. was a violation of his First Amendment religious and associative rights. At least one higher court agreed, and ruled that he had to be given the opportunity to join a secular alcohol treatment program.
Do you think it is possible that a distinction might be made between a group that involves actual worship and religious rites, and a group that merely utilizes religious beliefs for practical ends? (This distinction would not apply to the DUI parole.)
Here are a few cites regarding legal recognition of A.A. as a religious organization:
Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation. This link is to a U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision. I could swear this went to SCOTUS, but can’t find a link. The Court ruled that:
Oh, absolutely–though I also agree with other posters that even if A.A. is a religious group (and I contend that it is), that communications between attendees are not priveleged the way that parishioner/clergy communications are.
Then again, reading through the court decisions briefly, it appears that there is often some worship components to A.A. meetings. I doubt that these are something that comes from any sort of national directive, however; they probably arise at the local meeting level.
The issue in those two questions you quoted is quite different from the one in the OP, pldennison. The OP is (apparently–anyone have a link to the opinion?) a question of the admissibility of evidence, and your cases are about whether a punishment (mandatory AA meetings) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AFAIK, the First Amendment has never been construed to provide protection against the admission of statements made in the course of a religious meeting or ceremony. It’s the difference between forcing somebody to go to mass and simply reporting that the defendant was at church last Sunday.
I’m not an expert on the admission of statements made in confidentiality to a priest. ISTR that it varies quite a bit from state to state. But it is a very limited privilege–in general, if it isn’t a formal Catholic confession or a near equivalent of a different denomination/sect/religion, the declarant’s statements will not be privileged. AFAIK, the privilege has never been held to apply to any old statement made by one member of a religious group to another member.
So there are two obvious problems with the judge’s ruling. First, you have to show that AA is a religion such that AA would be covered by any relgious communications rule in the first place. And then you have to show that the particular statement was the kind of parishioner-priest confession that the privilege protects. Personally, I think it fails on both counts, but especially the first one.
All in all, I really wish I had my bar exam evidence outline with me, because it talked about how the privilege worked. Oh well, maybe somebody who actually knows the details will wander through.
Didn’t mean to muck up the question, minty. I intended my cites only to apply to the question of whether A.A. is a religious organization, which would need to be decided before the evidentiary issue could be addressed and which A.A. denies that they are.
As I said, my gut instinct as a layman is the same as the other posters’: “Hogwash.”
I don’t think this is true. As I noted (and linked) in the other thread, this priviledge has been upheld with regards to information told to a rabbi. There is nothing remotely resembling a confession in Judaism.
What I meant, Izzy, is that it has to be a formal communication with the religious leader with an attendant expectation of confidentiality, not just some sort of deal where all the members sit around and talk about whatever crosses their mind. I was just using the confession booth as a widely-recognized example of when the privilege has been held to apply.
I think the whole religious confidentiality thing is BS. Like the recent case where a priest let a guy sit in jail for 20 years before he finally spoke up and told police that another man confessed to the murder (sorry I cant find the link). Any religion only represents a portion of the American public. Why should that religion’s policies be able to affect ALL the citizens of the US weather or not they follow that religion. We all live in this country…we should ALL follow the same rules of conduct. Should the leader of a Satanist group be able to sacrifice people because it is part of his religious code? No, murder is illegal for everyone in this country.
People should not be able to keep something a secret because they belong to a certain group. Everyone belongs to a special group. Should we all be able to with hold evidence?
Here’s the New York statute that is the source of the privilege at issue:
N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules, section 4505.
Judge Brieant does not appear to put his rulings online, but here’s a New York Times article that discusses the case in greater depth. Among the highlights is the district attorney’s observation that the conversations took place away from the AA meetings.
All I can figure is that Judge Brieant enjoys getting slapped down by the Court of Appeals, because this is an utterly baseless extension of confidentiality rules.
AA is not a religion. There is a difference between sprituality and religion.
There are members of AA from nearly all religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buhddist, etc) who are working a spiritual program that has absolutely nothing to do with their religion, although many of the principles may be similar to many faiths- honesty, faith, service, etc.
It’s a shitty and stupid ruling, allowing a scumbag an out.
Do any of you who believe AA is a religion actually belong to any AA or other 12-step group?