Access to psych records — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

United States v. Mellette. Your military defense counsel needs to know about and understand this case.

📘 1. Background and Prior History

Accused & Charges
EM1 (Nuclear) Wendell E. Mellette, Jr. was tried by general court-martial at NAS Jacksonville in August 2019. Contrary to his plea, he was convicted under Article 120b, UCMJ (sexual abuse of a child) for committing sexual contact upon his 15-year‑old sister-in-law. He received five years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge afcca.law.af.mil+10Lewis & Clark Law School+10Findlaw+10.
Pre‑trial Motion
Mellette sought the victim’s mental-health records—including diagnoses, treatment plans, and prescribed medications—to explore potential effects on her memory, truthfulness, and suggestibility Lewis & Clark Law Schooljagcnet.army.mil+5armfor.uscourts.gov+5Supreme Court+5.
Military Judge’s Denial
The court denied this motion, ruling the records were protected under the psychotherapist‑patient privilege (M.R.E. 513(a)) and that Mellette had not shown them to be relevant and necessary under R.C.M. 703 Findlaw+11armfor.uscourts.gov+11Supreme Court+11.

🧭 2. Navy-Marine Corps CCA Decision (May 14, 2021)

Privilege Scope Extension
The NMCCA ruled that M.R.E. 513(a) indeed covers diagnoses, treatment, and medication records, not just patient‑therapist communications armfor.uscourts.gov+3armfor.uscourts.gov+3armfor.uscourts.gov+3.
Waiver Finding
The court found the victim waived privilege by discussing her diagnoses and treatment with third parties afcca.law.af.mil+12Lewis & Clark Law School+12armfor.uscourts.gov+12.
Relevance and Necessity
NMCCA held the mental-health records were relevant and necessary to Mellette’s defense (i.e., potential bias, credibility issues) Supreme Court+6Lewis & Clark Law School+6armfor.uscourts.gov+6.
Right to In-Camera Review
They held that due process and Confrontation Clause rights required in-camera review of those records armfor.uscourts.gov+3Lewis & Clark Law School+3armfor.uscourts.gov+3.
Harmless Error & Remedial Action
The court found errors related to exclusion of records, expert testimony on “grooming,” and victim impact statements recommending a sentence—but ultimately deemed them harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of guilt. The guilty finding was affirmed after narrowing the specification, removing “on divers occasions” Lewis & Clark Law School+1armfor.uscourts.gov+1.

🏛️ 3. CAAF Review and Remand

The CAAF granted review (Sept 7, 2021) on the scope of the privilege and prejudice analysis armfor.uscourts.gov+13Lewis & Clark Law School+13Department of Justice+13.
It later clarified that M.R.E. 513 does not categorically exclude all records containing diagnoses and treatments; protected content turns on whether communications are confidential and for therapeutic purposes Lewis & Clark Law School+8jagcnet.army.mil+8armfor.uscourts.gov+8.

CAAF’s 2022 Opinion – Clarifying the Scope of M.R.E. 513
- Core Holding: The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) held that Military Rule of Evidence 513(a) protects only confidential communications between a patient and psychotherapist, not all mental health records or documentation of diagnoses/treatment plans Stjececmsdusgva001+15U.S. Courts – Armed Forces+15Supreme Court+15.
- Textual Interpretation: The term “communication made between the patient and a psychotherapist” was interpreted literally—excluding broader medical records that do not memorialize direct communications U.S. Courts – Armed Forces+3Jag Reporter+3Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals+3. The CAAF emphasized that, if broader privilege was intended, it would have been clearly incorporated, as seen in similar state statutes Wikipedia+15JAGCNet+15U.S. Courts – Armed Forces+15.
- Strict Construction Principle: In line with Trammel v. United States and allied precedent, privileges are to be construed narrowly because they conflict with truth-seeking goals DACIPAD+4U.S. Courts – Armed Forces+4Supreme Court+4.

Thus, the matter was remanded for further proceedings to assess the level of privilege, appropriate waiver, and prejudice armfor.uscourts.gov+3Department of Justice+3armfor.uscourts.gov+3.

🔍 4. Key Legal Issues

Scope of M.R.E. 513(a)
Does the privilege encompass diagnoses, treatments, and medication records, or solely communications? The NMCCA broadly held yes armfor.uscourts.gov+4armfor.uscourts.gov+4Department of Justice+4Department of Justice+2armfor.uscourts.gov+2armfor.uscourts.gov+2; CAAF later narrowed the scope, requiring confidentiality and therapeutic purpose rather than automatic inclusion .
Waiver Analysis
Whether the victim’s voluntary disclosures to third parties waived privilege, and if so, to what extent (specific communications, diagnoses, or full records).
Due Process—In-Camera Review
Whether Mellette was denied his rights by being prevented from conducting independent review of protected materials.
Harmless Error Considerations
Even if privilege was misapplied or improperly excluded, whether these errors materially prejudiced Mellette’s defense or sentencing.

⚖️ 5. Analysis & Implications

Navigating Privilege vs. Defense Rights
Mellette emphasizes the tension between victim psychotherapist‑patient privilege and the accused’s constitutional right to a full defense, including the ability to challenge credibility via mental-health factors.
Refinement of M.R.E. 513
The case underscores that even if certain records reference diagnoses or treatments, privilege applies only if communications were confidential and intended for diagnosis/treatment.
In-Camera Review as Safeguard
Ensures a court can assess relevance and confidentiality before deciding what must be disclosed—maintaining balance between privacy and fair trial rights.
Prejudice Standard Crucial
The appellate findings demonstrate courts will consider whether errors affected the outcome or sentence, not merely if errors occurred.

✅ Conclusion

United States v. Mellette is pivotal in military law for clarifying the scope and limits of the psychotherapist-patient privilege under M.R.E. 513. It stresses precise waiver inquiries and underscores in‑camera review as a procedural necessity. The case highlights the delicate balance between preserving witness confidentiality and safeguarding the accused’s constitutional rights to a fair and complete defense.

Upon remand, the fact-finder must evaluate which portions of mental-health records are shielded, whether the victim relinquished privilege, and whether Mellette suffered actual prejudice—ensuring due process and evidentiary fairness.