## Facts

- Margaret Melton Pratt shot and killed her husband while he slept in their Montgomery County apartment on October 23, 1976.
- After the shooting, she left the area, stayed overnight at a motel, returned home briefly the next day, then went to police and reported the death; she was arrested after police verified the report.
- Pratt was indicted for murder and related offenses and pleaded not guilty, asserting an insanity defense.
- The court ordered psychiatric evaluations to assess sanity at the time of the offense, present sanity, and competency to stand trial.
- Defense counsel separately retained psychiatrist Dr. Brian Crowley to examine Pratt to assist in preparing the insanity defense.
- At trial, over defense objection, the State called Dr. Crowley, who testified he had been retained by the defense and that, in his opinion, Pratt was not legally insane at the time of the killing.
- In closing, the prosecutor emphasized that Crowley was defense-retained and argued the defense had sought multiple experts before locating those supportive of insanity.
- The jury rejected insanity and convicted Pratt of murder.

## Issues

1. Whether communications and related information disclosed by a defendant to a psychiatrist retained by defense counsel to assist in an insanity defense are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
2. Whether the privilege is waived by pleading insanity, submitting to court-ordered psychiatric examinations, and presenting psychiatric evidence at trial, thereby permitting the State to call the defense-retained psychiatrist.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that defendant communications to a psychiatrist retained by defense counsel to assist in preparing an insanity defense are within the attorney-client privilege.
- The court held the privilege was not waived merely by an insanity plea, participation in court-ordered examinations, or presentation of other psychiatric testimony.
- The admission of Dr. Crowley’s testimony over objection violated the privilege.
- The court affirmed the intermediate appellate court’s judgment ordering a new trial, excluding the privileged testimony.

## Legal Principles

- The attorney-client privilege extends to communications involving agents or experts retained by counsel when their specialized assistance is reasonably necessary to provide legal services.
- A psychiatrist retained by defense counsel to evaluate and assist in preparing an insanity defense functions as an agent of counsel for privilege purposes, and the defendant’s disclosures to that psychiatrist are protected.
- Placing mental condition at issue through an insanity defense does not, without more, waive the attorney-client privilege as to defense-retained expert consultations.
- Admission of privileged defense-team evidence, and prosecutorial use of it to suggest defense “expert shopping,” may constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial when mental state is central to the case.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the State may not compel testimony from a psychiatrist retained by defense counsel about a defendant’s examination and opinions formed for the defense, and that an insanity plea does not itself waive that protection; because the privileged testimony was admitted and used against Pratt, she was entitled to a new trial.


State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516, 398 A.2d 421 (Md. 1979)