Privilege for confidential communications between patients and "psychotherapists"

Leavitt v. Arave, 371 F.3d 663, 683 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of victim's testimony as an excited utterance because (1) "the victim was speaking while under the baleful influence of an....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.

David v. Pueblo Supermarket of St. Thomas, 740 F.2d 230, 235 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding, in plaintiff pregnant shopper's negligence action against defendant supermarket chain owner/operator for damages, that the trial court properly....A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or condition.

Unied States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273, 1277-1278 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that evidence of accused's bad acts to prove "pattern of crimes especially close in time" was inadmissible where "many bad acts of which [accused] was [charged] during trial were not similar in the sense...That other wrongs or crimes show a person's pattern of conduct does not by itself make inapplicable either the prohibition in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) against the use of character or propensity to show that person's conduct on a particular occasion or the corollary prohibition in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) against the use of other wrongs or crimes to show character or propensity for the purpose of showing a person's conduct on a particular occasion.