Recent Supreme Court decisions have placed restrictions on the admissibility of hearsay at trial if the defendant does not have the opportunity to cross examine the person who made the statement. Statements obtained for the purpose of preventing imminent violence are admissible but testimonial hearsay is not. Should this rationale be extended to prevent use of dying declarations if the officer obtained the statement primarily to help prosecute the murderer?
Case law has developed a duty for psychotherapists to warn people who may be endangered by a violent client. This has raised a myriad of issues surrounding the level of specificity of the threat, whether the potential victim can be identified, and the ability to predict when a human being will act in a violent manner. Should this duty be extended to anyone who, based on a privileged communication, reasonably believes that an identifiable person is in danger?