The purpose or purposes of the psychotherapist-patient privilege

United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's exclusion of Hernandez's statement under the residual hearsay exception because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 807 as "the....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) advisory committee's note ("The definition follows along familiar lines in including only statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. McCormick ? 225; 5 Wigmore ? 1361, 6 id. ? 1766. If the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the...If some human utterance has legal significance under applicable substantive law and the utterance is offered to establish that a verbal act having such legal significance has taken place, the utterance is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) or a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2) even if the utterance also contains an assertion or appears to contain an an assertion.

Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708, 715-716 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding, in plaintiff employee's action against defendant employer for racials harassment and retaliation, that the two statements [about a conversation with....A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered to show a person's belief or state of mind and the relevance of the person's belief or state of mind does not depend on the truth or falsity of the statement.