## Facts

- While deployed in Bosnia, Specialist Hector Rodriguez intentionally rigged an automatic weapon to shoot himself in the stomach and wounded himself.
- He was evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany and treated by Dr. Jose Alfano, a civilian psychiatrist, who diagnosed dependent personality disorder.
- During psychiatric treatment, Rodriguez stated he was not suicidal and intentionally discharged the weapon to be reunited with his estranged wife in Germany.
- At trial, Rodriguez asserted the weapon fired accidentally while he was retrieving it after abandoning an attempt to shoot himself.
- The defense moved to suppress Dr. Alfano’s testimony under the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege recognized in *Jaffee v. Redmond*.
- The military judge denied suppression, reasoning that the *Jaffee* privilege did not apply at courts-martial under Military Rule of Evidence 501 and Article 36, UCMJ.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychotherapist-patient privilege recognized in federal common law applies at courts-martial under Military Rule of Evidence 501.
2. Whether the military judge erred by admitting the psychiatrist’s testimony about treatment-related statements.
3. If admission was error, whether it materially prejudiced the accused’s substantial rights under Article 59(a), UCMJ.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that admitting Dr. Alfano’s testimony was not reversible error.
- Even assuming a psychotherapist-patient privilege applied, the court found no material prejudice because other evidence independently established intentional self-wounding.

## Legal Principles

- Privileges in courts-martial are governed by Military Rule of Evidence 501 and Article 36, UCMJ; federal common-law privileges are not automatically coextensive with civilian practice.
- A claimed evidentiary privilege, even if recognized, may be construed narrowly in the military context.
- Relief for evidentiary error in a court-martial requires a showing of material prejudice to substantial rights under Article 59(a), UCMJ.
- Where the record contains strong independent proof of the contested fact, admission of disputed testimony may be treated as non-prejudicial.

## Conclusion

The military appellate court upheld Rodriguez’s conviction for self-wounding under Article 134, concluding that the admission of his psychiatrist’s testimony did not warrant reversal, particularly given substantial independent evidence that he intentionally shot himself.


United States v. Rodriguez, 54 M.J. 156 (C.A.A.F. 2000)