Supreme Court has not specifically recognized the crime-fraud exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Court in Jaffee recognized that “[although it would be premature to speculate about most future developments in the federal psychotherapist privilege, we do not doubt that there are situations in which the privilege must give way....” 518 U.S. at 18 n. 19, 116 S.Ct. 1923. The Supreme Court also historically has recognized that evidentiary privileges must be “strictly construed,” and may be recognized “only to the very limited extent that ... excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Based on the First Circuit’s analysis in
holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless holding that apart from confidential communications witness spouse alone has privilege to refuse to testify adversely and may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that the privilege against selfincrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness refusal to testify