In People v. Valderama, 2025 IL App (2d) 240574, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a contempt order issued against the Zacharias Sexual Abuse Center, which had declined to comply with a subpoena for confidential counseling records of a sexual assault victim. The case presents an important analysis of the legal tension between a victim’s statutory right to confidentiality and a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
The defendant, Mcred Valderama, was charged with the sexual assault of a minor. During pretrial proceedings, his defense subpoenaed the Zacharias Center, arguing that the records might include impeachment material, such as inconsistencies in the victim’s account that could be crucial for cross-examination and protected under the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
Rather than conducting the required private screening by the judge (referred to as an in-camera review) to assess whether the records were relevant and essential to Valderama’s defense, the trial court simply ordered the Center to comply with the motion to disclose records. When the Center refused, the Court found the conduct amounted to indirect civil contempt. The Appellate Court held that this contempt order was improper because the trial court erred by failing to conduct an in-camera review of the victim’s counseling records before ordering their production. Because the trial court bypassed this essential step, the contempt order against the Zacharias Sexual Abuse Center was an “abuse of discretion.”
The Illinois Appellate Court relied on the Illinois Supreme Court precedent in People v. Foggy, 121 Ill. 2d 337 (1988). The Foggy Court stated that there is a strong public policy in favor of the confidentiality of communications between sexual assault victims and counselors, and “noted that the role of rape crisis counselors is not to investigate but rather to help the victim understand and resolve their feelings,” and concluded that a defendant “was not denied due process, nor was his confrontation right violated by the trial judge’s refusal to conduct an in camera inspection of the victim’s counseling records.” The Illinois Appellate Court also cited Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to access confidential records is not absolute. Instead, it requires a plausible showing that the records contain “material evidence.”
This decision affirms the legal principle in Illinois that mental health records are private and the privilege sacrosanct. What a recipient of mental health services shares with a therapist will remain private, unless the recipient introduces his/her own mental health as an element of the claim or defense. This decision establishes a clear precedent that courts must follow the proper legal process before infringing upon the confidentiality of mental health records. Even in serious criminal cases, victim privacy cannot be overridden without first applying the strict protections mandated by law.
If you are confronted with a subpoena or court order involving confidential mental health records, contact the attorney you regularly work with at Airdo Werwas, LLC, or reach out to Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com for legal assistance.