• A New York state court ruled that a priest's testimony in a criminal hearing was not "privileged." A criminal suspect was convicted on two counts of burglary, and he appealed his conviction. One basis for his appeal was that the trial court improperly considered the testimony of a priest with whom the defendant had spoken briefly. An appeals court rejected the defendant's argument. It acknowledged that there was a difference of opinion as to why the defendant had spoken with the priest. The defendant claimed that he spoke with the priest solely to ask him to contact an attorney on his behalf. On the other hand, the priest testified that the defendant sought him out in order to apologize personally to him for burglarizing his home. The appeals court concluded that only those communications made to a minister while acting in his or her professional role as a spiritual advisor are privileged ...
Join now to access this member-only content
Already a member? Log in for full access.