Full opinion text
DECISION AND ORDER (REDACTED) STADTMUELLER, District Judge. This tragic ease began on January 5,1992, when an infant girl was found dead in her parents’ home [redacted]. Six days later, her sister was also found dead. Their deaths were initially • attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and influenza. Based on a series of statements made to mental health counselors and reported to law enforcement officials, however, the Government subsequently charged the infants’ cousin, D.F., with murder. Today, the court decides whether the Government may use D.F.’s statements to support its case against her. Procedural History On November 17, 1993, the Government filed an information charging D.F., a juvenile, with two counts of murder in the second degree, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111,1153, and 5031. D.F. made an initial appearance in U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Good-stein’s court on November 18, 1993. On March 7, 1994, D.F. moved to suppress a series of inculpatory statements she made to [redacted] County Mental Health Center (“Center”) therapists and staff members. In that motion, D.F. argued that the statements were procured in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. D.F. reserved an argument that the statements were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege for trial. In recommending that the statements be suppressed, Magistrate Goodstein found that although the protections against self-incrimination announced in Miranda v. Arizona did not apply to limit D.F.’s discussions with the Center staff, her statements made during the course of therapy were absolutely protected from disclosure by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Both parties objected to the Magistrate’s Recommendation: the Government objected to the overall recommendation, and to the Magistrate’s findings on the psychotherapist-patient privilege; D.F. objected to the Magistrate’s findings on the Miranda issue, and renewed her argument that the statements were not voluntarily made. Facts At all times relevant to the suppression motion, D.F. was thirteen or fourteen years old. She presents a history of runaway behavior, assaultive behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse. (Transcript of Proceedings Exhibit (“Ex.”) J-l.) There is evidence that she suffered from extensive abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, during her childhood. (Ex. J-l at 2.) She has had extensive exposure to the juvenile social services and justice system. (Ex. J-l at 1.) Prior to being charged in this case, she had been charged with battery on at least three occasions, and was suspected in at least three other incidents. (Ex. 1 at 8, J-l at 1-2.) She has lived with five different legal guardians, and has considered a sixth. (Ex. 1 at 9, J-l at 1.) From December 4, 1992 to May 14, 1993, D.F. participated in a residential treatment program at the Center. For our purposes, D.F.’s placement at the Center was less than voluntary. There is no evidence in the record that D.F. played any role in the admission decision. Moreover, the evidence suggests that Ms. A., D.F.’s aunt and the person who technically made the admission decision, was heavily influenced in making that decision both by a pending court order and by the Department of Social Services’ suggestion that D.F. be placed at the Center. (Transcript of Proceedings (“T.”) at 247-48; Third Supplemental Statement of Uncontested Facts (“Third Facts”) at 6.) In light of D.F.’s alcohol and drug problems, the Department had the power to remove her from Ms. A.’s home or to move in court for an involuntary placement. (Magistrate’s Recommendation (“R.”) at 2; T. at 247-49; Third Facts at 6-7.) Each patient at the Center interacted with and was treated by a number of different staff members. As a general matter, however, a team of professionals (including a psychiatrist, a social worker, a registered nurse, an occupational therapist, and a recreational therapist) was responsible for the progress and treatment of each patient. (T. at 128; Third Facts at 2.) Children and adolescents at the Center were considered to be the patients of Dr. J.G., staff psychiatrist and Director of the Child and Adolescent Unit at the Center. (Third Facts at 3.) In his clinical role, Dr. G. performed a number of functions: he attended weekly team meetings, he supervised the social workers and registered nurses on the team, and he made high level clinical decisions, including decisions about medications and level of supervision. (Third Facts at 4.) He also had direct contact with each patient at least once a week. (Third Facts at 4.) Day-to-day treatment responsibilities, however, were left to the remaining members of the team. Social workers, with occasional supervision from Dr. G., made the necessary treatment decisions. (Third Facts at 2, 4-5.) Initially, R.M. served as the social worker for D.F; B.K. assumed those duties at a later time. Registered nurses met directly with Dr. G. to review patients’ charts on weekdays. (Third Facts at 2, 4.) As a general rule, statements made by patients at the Center were considered “confidential,” and were not to be reported to anyone other than the other members of the treatment team. (T. at 119, 194-95.) There were a host of exceptions to this rule of “confidentiality,” however. Patient statements were shared with a liaison official from the [redacted] County Department of Social Services, who was part of the treatment team. In addition, general statements (statements not relating to child abuse) could also be passed on, at the social worker’s discretion, to personnel from the [redacted] County Department of Social Services (including the Children’s Protective Services Unit, or “Protective Services”), the [redacted] County Juvenile Court, and the [redacted] Public Schools. (T. at 128-31.) Other exceptions were created by statute. The Wisconsin Children’s Code created mandatory reporting requirements for accounts of child abuse by victims. Wis.Stat.Ann. § 48.981. Under the reporting provisions, members of the treatment teams (physicians, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists) were required to report any suspicions that a patient had been abused. Id. The provisions also provided that “other persons” suspecting abuse of any child (i.e., including abuse by a patient of another child) may report those suspicions. Id. The provisions do not appear to address the situation at issue in this case, i.e., a team member suspecting that a patient had abused another child. To the extent that they do address that situation, they appear to preclude disclosure of such suspicions: “[t]he purpose of this subsection is to allow children to obtain confidential health care services.” Id. Mr. M. and Ms. K. and, apparently, several other staff members misunderstood the reporting provisions during most of D.F.’s stay at the Center. Upon admission to the Center, D.F. was shown and signed a form that outlined the limits on confidentiality at the Center. (Ex. B-l; T. at 280.) Mr. M. presented the form to her, and suggested to her that any statements she made about abuse of other children would have to be reported. (T. at 280.) Patients at the Center were told that their statements were confidential, at least with respect to the unit. (T. at 209.) There is evidence that D.F. thought that statements made during therapy and to staff were confidential. (Ex. F-l at 1.) However, there is also evidence that she knew her statements would be reported. In January 1993, D.F. refused to answer an explicit query about whether she had ever murdered anyone. (Ex. B-3; T. at 288.) She also refused to talk during another encounter, stating that she couldn’t because of staff’s reporting requirements. (Ex. C-5; T. at 403.) Ms. A. also informed Mr. M. of a statement by D.F.: “if all is known about what she’s done, she’d go to jail for a long time.” (Ex. B-4.) To the extent that D.F. knew about mandatory reporting, however, it is not at all clear that she knew the destination and consequences of any reporting. While at the Center, D.F. did enjoy some level of freedom. Although she lived in Unit One, a locked unit, she was able to move around within the unit and to other buildings for school and meals. (R. at 3; T. at 25-28.) Supervision while on campus varied depending on behavioral and safety concerns. (R. at 3; T. at 26.) Patients could negotiate temporary supervised trips off campus after they had earned sufficient behavior “points” (see discussion, infra). (T. at 28-31.) Patients under fourteen could only leave the Center permanently with family help. (T. at 28.) Those who were fourteen years old or older could leave the Center without family help, but only after waiting a period of forty-eight hours. (R. at 3; T. at 250-51.) During that forty-eight hour period, the medical director could go to court to prevent the patient from leaving. (R. at 3; T. at 251.) D.F. invoked her right to leave the Center on April 8,1993; she later rescinded. (Ex. B-8; T. at 308-311.) Staff at the Center “encouraged” the patients to discuss their problems openly and honestly. This “encouragement” took many forms. As a general matter, patient privileges and relative freedoms were determined through the use of a point system. (T. at 261.) Points could be earned for, among other things, open and sincere participation in group therapy sessions, as well as open and honest discussion in one’s journal; failure to do these things could result in a loss of points. (T. at 165, 262.) Patients also had to have regular conversations with their “person in charge” (usually nursing staff) about “why they are there.” (T. at 157-58, 203, 223.) Over and above the point system, patients were constantly encouraged to open up and be honest with staff and with family about their problems; frank exchanges were considered critical both to general treatment goals and to establishing a level of trust between staff and the patients. {E.g., T. at 318-19.) Because of her behavioral problems and her problems with mistrust of authority, D.F., in particular, had a care plan specially designed to encourage her to address anger issues by speaking frankly about the abuse she had inflicted on other children. (Ex. 5-8; T. at 266, 419.) For example, on December 31, 1992, she was encouraged to discuss her abuse of smaller children in her care; at the end of the session, she was “encouraged to work on these issues and to write more in her journal relating to these issues.” (Ex. 6 at 2; T. at 267-68.) On January 1, 1993, she was given an assignment “to make a list of people she has hurt.” (Ex. C-3, 7; T. at 225-26, 267-70, 415.) On January 18, 1993, she was asked whether she had ever murdered anyone. (Ex. B — 3; T. at 117, 287-88.) T.K., a member of D.F.’s treatment team, stated in an interim note on D.F.’s progress that exploration of D.F.’s physical abuse of young children was “of utmost importance.” (Ex. 10 at 1; T. at 354-56.) Occasionally, through negotiations with the juvenile justice system, staff at the Center were able to exert extra leverage on their patients. On March 2, Mr. M. informed D.F. that she would not be prosecuted for her admitted assaults provided that she continued to make treatment progress, and follow treatment expectations. (Ex. B-5; T. at 327.) “Making treatment progress” included avoiding going AWOL, and “continuing to participate sincerely” in treatment. (T. at 329.) By negotiating this arrangement with Protective Services, and by communicating it to D.F., Mr. M. sent two very clear messages: (1) D.F.’s frank disclosure of her past behavior would be generously rewarded, and (2) she would likely be granted leniency on any future disclosures. Once a particular problem in D.F.’s past became apparent, she was pushed even harder to discuss it. For example, after April 5, when D.F. made her initial disclosures, further discussion about her role in her cousins’ deaths was encouraged; in fact, it became part of her care plan. (Ex. F-l at 1.) For example, on two occasions, staff told her (1) to “tell the truth ... tell them how you did it”; and (2) “these are the reasons you’re here, you need to talk about them and get them resolved.” (Ex. F-l, I — 1; T. at 183-85, 206-07.) While D.F. was at the Center, Mr. M. cooperated with staff at Protective Services in [redacted] County and [redacted] County. He provided information to Protective Services about statements D.F. made while at the Center. (T. at 290-93.) He arranged for D.F.’s records, which included admissions regarding crimes, to be released to Protective Services. (T. at 292-93.) He also arranged for Protective Services to question D.F.: [redacted] County staff questioned her twice in January, (T. at 290-91); a worker from [redacted] County spoke with D.F. on February 11. (T. at 290, 325-26.) For many staffers, this broad policy of “encouragement” appears to have been motivated solely by treatment concerns. Encouraging D.F. to talk about her past actions was part of her care plan, and was universally seen as therapeutic and essential to any recovery. Some staff, however, took a more expansive view of “therapy” and “recovery.” Staffers subscribing to this expanded view felt that D.F. would not recover unless and until she took responsibility for her wrongs and was held accountable for them, in a court of law if necessary. (T. at 162,178,192, 342-43.) Mr. M. was informed in December 1992 that D.F. was suspected in the deaths of her two cousins and in the assaults of other cousins. (R. at 4; Ex. B-2 at 2; T. at 283.) Ms. K. learned about these suspicions sometime before February 23, 1993. (Ex. A-l.) At that time, both counselors felt that the Wisconsin child abuse reporting requirements required them to report any incriminating admissions made by D.F. to law enforcement authorities. (R. at 4; T. at 41.) Consequently, Mr. M. warned D.F. that she should be cautious about what she said, and that her counselors would have to report any disclosures she made about harming other children. (R. at 4.) He estimates that he warned her in this way on approximately ten occasions and recorded notes about his warnings in her chart about four times. (R. at 4.) Exhibits before the court reflect two such warnings. (Ex. B-4, A-l.) These warnings apparently had a mixed effect on D.F.. On one hand, several factors were working to limit the effect of the warnings. At the same time that Mr. M. was warning her about her disclosures, the staff plan was to get her to open up, to disclose as much as possible. (T. at 322-24.) Moreover, in his “warnings” to D.F., Mr. M. never warned D.F. that her statements might be used in court, or that she could have a lawyer present. (T. at 321; cf. T. at 209.) Additionally, the warnings were based on an admittedly mistaken reading of the Wisconsin child abuse reporting requirements. (T. at 321.) On the other hand, the warnings did seem to have some effect. As the discussion above, supra pp. 1314-1315, demonstrates, D.F. resisted the considerable pressure to confess for several months. On April 5, 1993, she broke down and confessed. At a group meeting with Ms. K., eight to ten other adolescents, and an “adult co-facilitator,” D.F. admitted to killing her two cousins. (R. at 5; T. at 45-49.) Ms. K. memorialized D.F.’s confession that same night, and informed Ms. A. about it. (T. at 51, 60.) She did not, however, consult with or inform Ms. A. or D.F. about her decision to report it. (T. at 125-26.) The next day, at the weekly team meeting, Ms. K. informed the members of the team of D.F.’s confession. (R. at 6.) D.V., a liaison from the Department of Social Services, immediately went to the telephone and reported D.F.’s disclosures to Protective Services. (R. at 53.) As a result of this report, the F.B.I. initiated the investigation that led to D.F.’s arrest. (R. at 6.) Later that day, Ms. K., Mr. M., and Dr. G. had further discussions regarding whether D.F.’s statements should have been disclosed. (R. at 7; Ex. A-3; T. at 53-55.) Mr. M. expressed concerns regarding whether the disclosures should have been made; Dr. G., a psychiatrist at the Center for 25 years, was not sure whether the disclosure should or could have been made, and suggested that Mr. M. and Ms. K. seek further professional advice about what to do next. (T. at 54.) On April 16, in responding to a call from the F.B.I. about D.F.’s admissions, Ms. K. expressed her uncertainty regarding the propriety of the disclosure. (T. at 62.) Later that day, she was informed for the first time by administrators and counsel at the Center that she had been permitted, but not required, by the Wisconsin Child Abuse reporting provisions to report D.F.’s statements. (R. at 7; T. at 64, 145-50.) See Wis.Stat. Ann. § 48.981. She was also informed that because she had warned D.F. of her reporting requirements and reported in good faith, her permissive reporting was appropriate. (Ex. A-6; T. at 147.) They further advised her to cooperate with the F.B.I., and she decided to do so. (T. at 151.) Sometime in April, Ms. K., D.F., and several nursing assistants met with Mr. F., an attorney from [redacted] who had been appointed to provide D.F. with precharge representation. (T. at 66-67; F. Aff. at 2-3.) At that meeting, Mr. F. told D.F. not to speak to any law enforcement agents or County Social Services personnel. (R. at 7; T. at 66-67.) He warned her that family and friends with information could be forced to disclose it. (Ex. A-5; T. at 66-67.) At that time, D.F. signed an invocation of her Fifth Amendment rights in Ms. K.’s presence. (R. at 7; Ex. 12.) Ms. K. did not inform Mr. F. at this meeting of her current and future plans to cooperate with the F.B.I. (T. at 359; F. Aff. at 2.) It does not appear that D.F. had been informed of Ms. K.’s cooperation. (T. at 356-58, 338-39.) If Mr. F. had known of such cooperation, he would have taken steps to ensure that D.F. did not talk to any Center staff and, ultimately, to ensure that D.F. was removed from the Center. (F. Aff. at 2-3.) Ms. K. told Mr. F. that therapy sessions were “confidential,” and did not tell him of the Center’s aforementioned position regarding the permissive reporting of statements made in these supposedly “confidential” therapy sessions. (T. at 360.) D.F. repeated her confession at family therapy meetings on April 14, April 23 and May 10. (R. at 7; Ex. A-6, A-7, A-8, B-7 at 2; T. at 70-83.) Incredibly, despite Ms. K.’s discussions with the F.B.I. and corporation counsel, and Mr. V.’s discussions with Protective Services, Ms. K. reassured the family and D.F. of the confidentiality of the family therapy sessions at the April 23 session. (R. at 7; Ex. A-6; T. at 55-56.) During the April 23 and May 10 sessions, she asked “facilitating” questions that were designed to encourage a free discussion of D.F.’s actions. (T. at 362-63, 367-68.) Partially out of a concern that she might be asked by law enforcement exactly what D.F. had said, Ms. K. included in her notes of the May 10 meeting direct quotes from D.F. (T. at 368-69.) After her initial disclosures on April 5, D.F. was constantly “encouraged” to repeat and expand upon those disclosures. (T. at 231-32.) In response to this “encouragement,” she made incriminating statements on a number of other occasions. (Ex. E-3, E-4; T. at 231-32, 382-86.) The Government seeks to use all of these statements in its murder case against D.F. Discussion Magistrate Goodstein recommended that the statements made by D.F. during the course of her psychotherapy be suppressed. This court’s review of that recommendation is de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Magistrate based his recommendation on the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the starting point of my analysis. I The application of noneonstitutional privileges in the federal courts is governed by the Rules of Evidence: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law. Fed.R.Evid. 501. Without the benefit of briefing from the parties, the Magistrate, in applying Rule 501 to the facts of this ease, found that state law of noneonstitutional privilege should govern. (R. at 11.) The parties argue, and the court agrees, that this finding was in error, and that the court must look instead to federal law to determine the existence and scope of any psychotherapist-patient privilege. Congress has mandated that “principles of common law ... in light of reason and experience” govern the application of noncon-stitutional privileges. See Fed.R.Evid. 501. The court recognizes that the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not exist at common law. Note, Developments in the Law— Privileged Communications, 98 Harv.L.Rev. 1450, 1539 (1985). Several circuit courts have held that that recognition precludes further analysis under Rule 501. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.) (“[b]eeause our discretion under Rule 501 is limited to the development of privileges extant in the common law, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to quash subpoenas of Doe’s psychiatric records .... we decline to reach the merits of the efficacy of the psychotherapist-patient privilege by this holding, but we do opine that if such a privilege is to be recognized in federal criminal proceedings, it is up to Congress to define it, not this court”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 906, 110 S.Ct. 265, 107 L.Ed.2d 214 (1989); United States v. Corona, 849 F.2d 562, 567 (11th Cir.1988) (“evidentia-ry privileges in federal criminal cases are governed by common law ... neither common law nor statutory law provides for any type of physician-patient privilege”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1084, 109 S.Ct. 1542, 103 L.Ed.2d 846 (1989). This approach appears too rigid. Although Congress in Rule 501 makes reference to the common law, that does not mean that it intended to arbitrarily freeze privilege law in its 1974 state. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has found, and the legislative history suggests, that Congress enacted Rule 501 to allow the courts maximum flexibility in addressing privilege questions on a case-by-case basis. See United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 367, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 1190-91, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980); Statement by the Honorable William L. Hungate, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Upon Presenting the Conference Report on H.R. 5463 to the House for Final Consideration 3 (December 18, 1974) (“Rule 501 is not intended to freeze the law of privilege as it now exists ... [it] is intended to provide the courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis”), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7108, 7110. In fact, the legislative history suggests that, when it decided not to include a specifically enumerated psychotherapist-patient privilege, Congress recognized and approved of the application of such a privilege under certain circumstances: ... It should be clearly understood that, in approving this general rule as to privileges, the action of Congress should not be understood as disapproving any recognition of a psychiatrist-patient, or husband-wife, or any other of the enumerated privileges contained in the Supreme Court rules. Rather, our action should be understood as reflecting the view that the recognition of a privilege based on a confidential relationship and other privileges should be determined on a case-by-case basis. S.Rep. No. 93-1277, 93d Congress, 2d Session 9 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7059. In the abstract, “in light of reason and experience,” I am convinced that “a psychotherapist-patient privilege of some form furthers sufficiently important and overriding interests so that recognition of the privilege is appropriate under Rule 501.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 710 F.Supp. 999 (D.N.J.1989), aff'd, 879 F.2d 861 (3d Cir. June 27, 1989). Recognition of such a privilege would serve at least two important interests: effective psychiatric treatment and privacy. At the same time, it would impair the truth-seeking process by shielding potentially relevant evidence from the fact-finder, and ultimately limit the effectiveness of federal prosecutions. I am persuaded by the courts and commentators that have argued that in some cases, the former interests outweigh the latter. See, e.g., In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328 (2d Cir.1992); In re Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 639 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 983, 104 S.Ct. 426, 78 L.Ed.2d 361 (1983); Grand Jury Subpoena, 710 F.Supp. at 1012; Cunningham v. Southlake Center for Mental Health, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 474, 477 (N.D.Ind.1989) (“[i]t seems clear that the Seventh Circuit would recognize a psychotherapist-patient in the present case because the information sought regarding Cooper’s sessions with Dopson and her alleged revelations to Dopson involve ‘substantial accounts of therapy sessions’”) (citing In re Pebsworth, 705 F.2d 261, 263 (7th Cir.1983)); Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 504-21 — 504-23 (1993); Note, Developments in the Law — Privileged Communications, 98 Harv.L.Rev. 1450, 1548-55 (1985). Thus, the court will recognize the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The decision to recognize the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not end the court’s inquiry, however. Privileges judicially created or recognized under Rule 501 are not absolute. This is especially true with respect to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, which has been treated (by those courts that have recognized it) as “highly qualified.” See In re Doe, 964 F.2d at 1328 (“[ijndeed, the privilege amounts only to a requirement that a court give consideration to a witness’s privacy interests as an important factor to be weighed in the balance in considering the admissibility of psychiatric histories or diagnoses”). Cf. Zuniga, 714 F.2d at 640; Grand Jury Subpoena, 710 F.Supp. at 1013-14; Cunningham, 125 F.R.D. at 476-77 (all recognizing the privilege in the abstract, but declining to apply it to preclude discovery or admissibility). Consistent with the ease-by-case approach mandated by Rule 501, the court must now consider whether, in the instant case, the privilege should apply to D.F.’s statements. Courts applying the privilege have limited its scope in at least two ways. Some courts have applied an interest-balancing analysis, while others have displayed a definitional analysis. Under both approaches, the focus, as I have described above, has been on limiting, or “qualifying,” the scope of the privilege. These limits present serious difficulties for D.F.’s invocation of the privilege. Under an interest-balancing approach, the court must consider the extent to which the justifications for the privilege — the interests in effective therapy and in privacy — are promoted under these facts, and whether those interests outweigh the Government’s (and, indeed, the system’s) need for the information. Several aspects of this case suggest that the utilitarian gains from the privilege would be minimal. First, the interest in effective therapy will only be served to the extent that D.F., a fourteen year-old girl, understood the implications of disclosure. Although she had had some experience in the justice system, it is not clear that D.F. realized the serious consequences a charge of murder would bring. Second, to the extent that she did understand the consequences of disclosure, there is evidence in the record to suggest that she believed that the staff at the Center was required to disclose her statements, i.e., that the privilege would not protect her statements. To the extent that that is the case, the privilege would have been irrelevant; it would not have served any utilitarian purpose. Third, to the extent that D.F.’s “therapy” at the Center was compelled or coerced (see discussion below), the existence of the privilege likely provided only marginal utilitarian gains. Application of the privilege in this case would do very little to promote privacy interests. The facts of this case suggest that, regardless of whether this court finds that D.F.’s statements were privileged, her personal privacy has already been seriously compromised. The statements have already been widely disseminated amongst both governmental officials and other patients. Moreover, any residual privacy concerns the court might have are tempered by the private nature of this juvenile proceeding. Under the facts of this case, application of a psychotherapist-patient privilege would also do very little to promote personal autonomy. Because D.F. is a juvenile, her deci-sional independence in matters of physical and mental health is limited anyway; many of these decisions will be made by parents, relatives, or guardians. Moreover, D.F. didn’t appear to have any chance to exercise what little decisional independence she did have; she was admitted to the Center as a direct result of her involvement with the criminal justice system. On the other hand, the interests weighing against the privilege in this case are considerable. The Government believes that the two infants involved were murdered. D.F.’s statements are clearly relevant to that charge. In fact, the Government has suggested that that charge cannot be sustained without that evidence. Thus, nondisclosure would significantly impair both law enforcement interests and a general interest in the truth-seeking process. In sum, disclosure of D.F.’s statements would not significantly impact utilitarian or privacy interests. On the other hand, nondisclosure would seriously impact Government law enforcement interests as well as the truth-seeking process that is an integral part of our justice system. Ultimately, this case should not be decided on nonconstitutional grounds. Absent the constitutional dimension of this case, I would be extremely reluctant to suppress D.F.’s statements. If D.F. were a critical defense witness in a murder case, and the Government could not impeach her without her statements to her psychotherapist, I would not hesitate to order or allow disclosure. This case is only difficult because D.F.’s statements amounted to a confession of murder. A confession made under circumstances such as those present here inherently raises constitutional concerns. This case should be decided based on those concerns. II In his recommendation, the Magistrate found no violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination. D.F. objected to this aspect of the recommendation. The Fifth Amendment provides an absolute privilege against self-incrimination in a criminal trial: “nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’. Although the question has never been clearly addressed by the Supreme Court, there seems to be little doubt that the privilege applies in juvenile proceedings. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30-31, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1445, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 717-18, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2567-68, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); United States v. Fowler, 476 F.2d 1091, 1092 (7th Cir.1973). As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not self-executing; “it may not be relied upon unless it is invoked in a timely fashion.” Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 559, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 1364, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980). The Miranda warning of the right to remain silent is a limited exception to this general rule; it doesn’t “apply outside the context of the inherently coercive custodial interrogations for which it was designed.” Id. at 560, 100 S.Ct. at 1364. D.F. did not invoke her privilege against self-incrimination. On the other hand, she was not provided with any Miranda warnings. Thus, D.F.’s privilege against self-incrimination was violated if and only if she was subjected to “custodial interrogation” for the purposes of Miranda. D.F. makes a strong argument both that she was in custody and that the “therapy” to which she was subjected was the functional equivalent of interrogation. Clearly, her freedom of action was curtailed in a significant way. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Moreover, it could be argued that she was subject to the functional equivalent of express questioning during her therapy sessions. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Certainly, the staff at the center should have known that their practices were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” from D.F. Id. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1689. The Court in Miranda was concerned with changing police procedures. It described its concerns over atmospheres that are “police-dominated”. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 456, 86 S.Ct. at 1618. It illustrated the problem it was addressing through extensive reference to police manuals. Id. at 448-55, 86 S.Ct. at 1614-17. Most importantly, it created a bright-line rule that could be easily translated to police manuals and police training sessions. Id. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. Courts have been reluctant to expand the Miranda requirements to questioning by officials outside the law enforcement community. Whether this reluctance is explained in agency terms, see, e.g., United States v. Eide, 875 F.2d 1429, 1433-44 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Webb, 755 F.2d 382, 391-92 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Capra, 501 F.2d 267, 282 n. 4 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 990, 95 S.Ct. 1424, 43 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975); United States v. Antonelli, 434 F.2d 385, 336-37 (2d Cir.1970); Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d 1, 5 (9th Cir.1966), in custody terms, see, e.g., United States v. Rucker, 435 F.2d 950 (8th Cir.1971); Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 6.10(c) (1984 and Supp.1991) (suggesting that most of the agency cases could also be explained in terms of custody), or in interrogation terms, see, e.g., United States v. Morales, 834 F.2d 35, 38 (2d Cir.1987), it ultimately comes down to a reluctance to apply a bright-line prophylactic rule to situations where there is no direct law enforcement involvement. Imposing a Miranda requirement on the staff at the Center would be inconsistent with the motivations behind Miranda’s essentially inculcative approach. The history of abuse that motivated the Court in Miranda is conspicuously absent here. The court is not aware of any widespread pattern of overreaching by mental health officials seeking to elicit confessions. Moreover, any requirement that the court might fashion here would be anything but bright-line. Thus, the court will not decide this ease on Miranda grounds. Ill D.F. also argues that use of her statements against her would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In his recommendation, the Magistrate did not address this aspect of D.F.’s motion. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The guarantees of due process apply to juvenile proceedings. Gault, 387 U.S. at 30, 87 S.Ct. at 1445. The admission of involuntary confessions violates due process. See, e.g., Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109-10, 106 S.Ct. 445, 449-50, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). “[A] confession will be adjudged ‘voluntar/ if the government demonstrates that under the totality of the circumstances and by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not secured through psychological or physical intimidation but rather was the ‘product of a rational intellect and free will.’ ” United States v. Montgomery, 14 F.3d 1189, 1194 (7th Cir.1994). Cf. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208, 80 S.Ct. 274, 280, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960); Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S.Ct. 735, 741, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). The “crucial question” is whether the defendant’s will was overborne at the time he confessed, “and the answer lies in whether the authorities obtained the statement through coercive means.” Montgomery, 14 F.3d at 1194. In deciding this question, the court must consider both “the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation in determining whether a reasonable person would feel coerced.” Id. at 1194-95. In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the court may look at a number of factors, including “the age of the defendant, his lack of education or low intelligence, the lack of any advice to him of his constitutional rights, the length of his detention, the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning, and the use of physical punishment.” Id. at 1194-95. The Government argues that, as a threshold matter, D.F.’s statements were not involuntary because there is no evidence that they were brought about by police overreaching. In Colorado v. Connelly, the Supreme Court, in reversing the Colorado courts’ suppression of a confession as involuntary, held that “coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 521-22, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). The Government argues that, because the police were not directly or indirectly involved in eliciting D.F.’s statements, those statements cannot be considered involuntary under Connelly. This narrow reading of Connelly misses the point. At first blush, the language of the opinion appears to suggest a narrow police or law enforcement focus. See Connelly, 479 U.S. at 163-65, 107 S.Ct. at 519-20. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the opinion and facts of the case suggest otherwise. In Con-nelly, the Colorado Supreme Court had found that, because of the defendant’s mental state at the time, his confession had not been “the product of a rational intellect and free will.” Id. at 162, 107 S.Ct. at 519. As a result, the confession was deemed “involuntary,” notwithstanding the fact that the case involved no government wrongdoing or coercion. Id. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that government coercion or overreaching was a necessary prerequisite to an involuntariness finding: The difficulty with the approach of the Supreme Court of Colorado is that it fails to recognize the essential link between the coercive activity of the State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other. The flaw in respondent’s constitutional argument is that it would expand our previous line of ‘volun-tariness’ cases into a far-ranging requirement that courts must divine a defendant’s motivation for speaking or acting as he did even though there be no claim that the governmental conduct coerced his decision. Id. at 165-66, 107 S.Ct. at 521. The Court in Connelly simply wanted to make it clear that confessions unaffected by outside governmental coercion or coerced by private citizens should not be suppressed as involuntary. The Government’s reading of Connelly would, in this court’s view, lead to absurd results. State legislators could enlist government employers, welfare workers, and mental health workers as surrogate interrogators by setting up mandatory reporting requirements. As long as the police had no involvement in this enlistment, Due Process protections would not bar the use of any incriminating statements. Such an approach simply does not pass muster in today’s world. Just as the courts have recognized that the Constitution protects against psychological, as well as physical coercion, so must they recognize that in this day of extensive government involvement in people’s fives, State coercion is not the exclusive province of the police department. I do not mean to suggest that Con-nelly does not require a threshold inquiry into State coercion. I only suggest that that inquiry can go beyond the actions of traditional “law enforcement” personnel to the actions of the juvenile court system, the legislature, other government officials, and the reasonable feelings of the defendant. In the instant case, that inquiry reveals the necessary official coercion, “the essential fink between the coercive activity of the State, on the one hand, and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 165, 107 S.Ct. at 520-21. Clearly, this case involves coercion— indeed, a bit of overreaching — by government officials. Staff members at the Center were either enlisted or volunteered to act as law enforcement surrogates in eliciting confessions from troubled teens. There is extensive evidence in the record of the close relationship between staff at the Center and Protective Services, the juvenile court system, and the F.B.I. There is also evidence that many of the staff at the center saw themselves as an arm of law enforcement. Moreover, it would be totally reasonable for a child of D.F.’s age, intelligence, and mental state to believe that she was being “encouraged” to talk by, effectively, law enforcement personnel. As a result, I must consider whether D.F.’s confession was “voluntary.” As I noted above, that determination must be made based on the totality of the circumstances, including the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. Montgomery, 14 F.3d at 1194-95. Ultimately, the court must determine whether D.F.’s will was overborne at the time she confessed. Id. at 1194. Because D.F. was a juvenile at the time of her confession, the court must exercise “great care ... to insure the voluntariness” of her confession. Woods v. Clusen, 794 F.2d 293, 298 (7th Cir.1986) (citing Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 601, 68 S.Ct. 302, 304, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948)); cf. Gault, 387 U.S. at 55, 87 S.Ct. at 1458. D.F., a deeply disturbed girl of 13, was admitted against her will into a program at a locked facility in [redacted] County. She suffered from a pervasive mistrust of authority figures. Staff at the Center went to great lengths to encourage and develop her trust. They also employed a wide range of tactics to “encourage” her to talk about the crimes she had committed. Privileges were accorded based on, among other things, frank admission of crimes. Criminal admissions were forgiven subject to continued cooperation and disclosure. Individual staff questioned D.F. directly about her past crimes. Protective Services Staff were provided with information about her crimes, and were allowed to question her about further crimes. Staff at the Center were aware that D.F. was suspected of playing a role in her cousins’ deaths. They felt that she needed to talk about her involvement, both for therapeutic and punitive reasons. Consequently, they “encouraged” her to talk about it. D.F. resisted this “encouragement” for four months. This may or may not have been due to the statements of certain staff, who warned D.F. that they might have to “report” any incriminating statements she made. There is no evidence, however, that D.F. was ever fully warned of the consequences of a confession. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the warnings were minimal, and that, in any event, they never included any mention of D.F.’s Fifth Amendment privilege of self-incrimination. Finally, in April 1993, D.F. confessed to killing her two young cousins. Staff immediately reported the confession to Protective Services, and later cooperated with the F.B.I.’s investigation. At the same time, staff pressured D.F. to repeat and expand upon her confession, even after she had retained an attorney and invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, D.F. made a number of additional incriminating statements in the ensuing weeks. After considering the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that D.F.’s inculpa-tory statements were secured through psychological coercion and were not the “product of a rational intellect and free will.” Blackburn, 361 U.S. at 208, 80 S.Ct. at 280. Given the circumstances under which they were employed, the various “encouragement” techniques employed by the staff were highly coercive. A reasonable person of D.F.’s age, intellect, and mental state would have felt coerced. In sum, D.F.’s confession was not “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Government use at trial of statements made by D.F. in the course of her therapy would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that D.F.’s motion to suppress evidence be and the same is hereby GRANTED. All statements made to any counselor, therapist, or treatment worker at the [redacted] County Mental Health Center are hereby suppressed. RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONORABLE J.P. STADTMUELLER AND ORDER GOODSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Two infant children, sisters, were tragically found dead in their parents’ house six days apart. The medical examiner attributed the first death to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and the second death to influenza. A subsequent opinion offered by a different medical examiner found both deaths to be consistent with suffocation. On November 17, 1993, the United States filed a two count information charging D.F., a juvenile, in each count with murder in the second degree, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111, 1153 and 5031. D.F. made an initial appearance before this court on November 18, 1993. A delinquency hearing is scheduled before Judge J.P. Stadt-mueller on April 25, 1994, with a final pre-hearing conference to be conducted on April 20,1994. Currently pending before the court are D.F.’s motions to suppress evidence, motion for a jury trial and motion for notice of uncharged misconduct evidence. The motions have been fully briefed and are ready for resolution. Motion to Suppress Statements D.F. moves to suppress all statements which were made to any counselor, therapist or treatment worker attributed to D.F. while she was confined in the [redacted] Mental Health Center. The court conducted an evi-dentiary hearing regarding this motion commencing February 3,1994. Testifying at the hearing were treatment counselors B.K. and R.M., registered nurse P.S., and nursing assistants L.B., S.A., D., S.V. and D.M. All of these witnesses were employed by the [redacted] Mental Health Center during the period of D.F.’s treatment. The parties have agreed upon many of the underlying facts, and the court commends the parties for their extensive efforts in this regard. The court would further note that the testimony presented few, if any, factual disputes. Rather, the dispute between the parties focuses upon the significance of the events which transpired. The court makes the following findings of fact: At all times relevant to the suppression motion, D.F. was a juvenile, thirteen to fourteen years of age. On December 4, 1992, D.F. was admitted to the locked adolescent unit of the [redacted] Mental Health Center where she resided at all times relevant to the suppression motion. Her admission was voluntary, although she was under court supervision at the time, and a condition of her supervision was that she cooperate with recommended counseling; had she not been voluntarily admitted, she may have been ordered into treatment. The conditions of confinement have certain similarities to a low security custodial setting. The clients are not permitted to leave the adolescent unit freely, although they may generally move about within the unit. The clients are outside of the unit on many occasions, including visits to the main dining room and the school. At the age of thirteen, D.F.’s guardian could sign her out for up to four hours if approved; after turning fourteen on March 17, 1993, D.F. could sign herself out for this period, if approved. A client can leave permanently, but only after a forty-eight hour waiting period which allows the medical director an opportunity to seek involuntary placement under Wisconsin law. After returning from a pass, clients are subjected to strip searches for contraband. At various times, a client might be confined to her room for disciplinary reasons or, when suicide prevention is a concern, may not be allowed out of the unit unescorted. R.M. is an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselor at the facility. On December 11, 1992, M. met with D.F. and explained the rules and procedures regarding matters of confidentiality. At the time of D.F.’s admission, the [redacted] Mental Health Center was developing its policies with regard to informing patients of matters relating to child abuse which would not be kept confidential. M. explained to D.F. that “any information about suspected child abuse or neglect ...” was not protected by confidentiality. D.F. acknowledged this in writing and M. testified that D.F. did not appear to have any difficulty understanding this explanation. See Exhibit B-l. During the next week, M. was in contact - with N.M., a caseworker from the [redacted] County Department of Human Services, regarding D.F.’s sexual activity with adult men. During their discussions, M. told M. that D.F. was suspected in the death of two of her cousins and that there were also concerns of D.F. being violent toward other cousins, breaking arms or legs. M. was advised that nothing had ever been proven and the deaths were attributed to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or influenza. Exhibit B-2. M. testified that this information caused him to have a heightened sensitivity to the issues of confidentiality and reporting. At this point in time, M. believed that any information concerning the abuse of a juvenile, either a juvenile patient who was the subject of abuse or a patient who caused the abuse of a juvenile, had to be reported to the authorities. Consequently, M. made a point of telling D.F. that any disclosures about hurting or killing a child would have to be reported to Protective Services and ultimately to law enforcement. To this end, M. told D.F. that she should be cautious about what she said, and that it was her choice to not speak about any incidents. M. estimated that he warned D.F. approximately ten times and recorded notes about his warnings in her chart about four times. See e.g., Exhibits A-l, B-4. D.F. was aware that her admissions would be reported and for several months she avoided disclosing her actions. On January 7, 1993, for instance, D.F. was asked if she had ever murdered anyone and responded, “I can’t answer that.” Defense Exhibit 11. On January 8, 1993, D.F. was asked if she had ever murdered anyone and she did not respond. Exhibit B-3. Around the same time, she told staff members that if they knew all the people she had hurt it would get her in trouble. Tr. 239. Another time she told her aunt that if everything she had done were disclosed she would have to go to jail for a long time. Exhibit B^t. On March 17, 1993 D.F. told a staff member, when encouraged to talk with staff, “I can’t. You have to report what I say.” Exhibit C-5. Despite D.F.’s reluctance to discuss her past actions, the staff continued its efforts to have D.F. truthfully verbalize her past conduct. Ultimately, over a period of time, D.F. made limited disclosures about her past conduct and alluded to the severity of her conduct. For instance, on January 1,1993, D.F. was instructed by a Person In Charge (“PIC”) for a particular shift to make a list of all the people she had hurt in the past, which was embodied in Exhibit C-3. See also Exhibit D-l. After D.F. disclosed that she broke her Cousins’s arm, D.F. was told, on March 2, 1993, that a tentative decision had been reached by the [redacted] County Human Services Department to refrain from charging D.F. for this act of violence toward her cousin if D.F. continued to make treatment progress. On April 5,1993, she made a specific statement regarding her fatally assaultive behavior toward her two [redacted]. This was followed by several similar disclosures over the next several weeks. D.F.’s disclosures regarding her [redacted] appear to have been a culminating response to continuing urging and encouragement she was given as part of her treatment by the hospital staff to fully ■ disclose the wrongs of her past. D.F.’s treatment program had several express objectives, including to develop trust and avoid telling lies. To this end, the clients are given a variety of incentives to discuss personal matters. For instance, each client is instructed to have at least one contact with the PIC for a particular shift. Failure to initiate a contact or to follow instructions could result in either the loss of points or the award of fewer points under a point based incentive system. Likewise, the clients were awarded or assessed points for their participation in group sessions. The loss of points could lead to the loss of various privileges, or to disciplinary measures such as “Base 0,” in which the client was confined to her room for a period of time, had to dress in her hospital robe and complete a particular reading and writing assignment. D.F.’s disclosure on April 5, 1993 occurred while D.F. was participating in a group session with other juveniles, led by B.K. The juveniles in the group were discussing serious things they had done in their lives. One of the group was discussing an incident and the others in the group were telling him that he should be more honest. D.F. responded by saying words to the effect of “Oh, you think what you did is bad, let me tell you what I did ...” D.F. proceeded to disclose details of the events surrounding the two deaths. On April 6, 1993, the staff conducted a meeting in which K. told the persons present about D.F.’s disclosures. D.V., a liaison from the Department of Social Services, went, without any staff discussion, to the telephone and reported D.F.’s disclosures to Protective Services. The matter made its way through various channels and ultimately, the F.B.I. initiated an investigation. Meanwhile, there were ongoing discussions amongst the staff as to whether this matter should have been reported, in what fashion and what level of cooperation was appropriate. Initially it was believed that there was no choice under Wisconsin law but to report D.F.’s disclosures. Around April 16, 1993, however, K. learned that the confidentiality and reporting law, Sec. 48.981, Wis.Stat. does not mandate, but may permit, reporting when a juvenile discloses that she was the perpetrator of abuse. Reporting is only mandatory to the extent that a juvenile admits being the victim of abuse. In the days and weeks which followed, D.F. continued to discuss the deaths with the treatment staff on various occasions. On April 22, 1993, K. was contacted by an attorney in [redacted] who had been appointed to be D.F.’s public defender. K. was present when the attorney spoke with D.F. and told D.F. not to speak with anyone about the case — either law enforcement or tribal authorities. D.F. signed a statement indicating that she did not want to speak with anyone unless her attorney was present. Defendant’s Exhibit 12. The infants’ deaths were the topic of discussion between K. and D.F.’s family on April 23, 1993 and again on May 10, 1993. Exhibit A-6, A-8. As of April 23, 1993, K. was considering the appropriate level of cooperation with the F.B.I. and advised the family to “keep discussions of the death confined to the session, so that they could be protected by confidentiality.” Analysis The parties focus upon the issue of whether the admission of D.F.’s statements would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment and her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). D.F. contends that over the course of her treatment she was not free to leave, that the treatment staff were acting as agents of the police in memorializing and reporting incriminating statements and that the course of her treatment constituted interrogation, intending to get her to make incul-patory admissions. The government contends that her statements were voluntary disclosures made free from any coercive effects and that, although D.F. was never advised of her Miranda rights, she was not subjected to custodial interrogation by law enforcement which would invoke the protections of Miranda and the sanctions of the exclusionary rule. A person in custody must be informed, prior to interrogation, of her right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). In a conventional context, Miranda deals with the interrogation of an accused, alone in an investigator’s office, in which the “atmosphere suggests the invincibility of the forces of the law.” 384 U.S. at 449-50, 86 S.Ct. at 1614-15. The present case is not the conventional context of interrogation. However, the juvenile contends that the entire five month course of her residential treatment in the locked adolescent unit of the Mental Health Complex was equivalent to custodial interrogation and therefore, the safeguards of Miranda apply. This is a case about privilege; the privilege of communications which may arise between a patient and a psychotherapist, and in a related sense, the privilege against self-incrimination. Unquestionably, this case presents a tragic situation. Two infants are dead, and their family grieves. D.F.’s background and present circumstances are also tragic. At a minimum, she has very serious emotional and psychological problems. From a legal standpoint, the case implicates rights which are the very foundation of our constitution. As stated in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 460, 86 S.Ct. at 1620 (citations and internal quotations omitted), the privilege against self-incrimination, developed as one which groped for the proper scope of governmental power over the citizen ... the privilege has come rightfully to be recognized in part as an individual’s substantive right, a right to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.... [T]he constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government — state or federal — must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a fair state — individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth. D.F. was in a treatment setting because she had demonstrated significant problems in her psychological development. Communications between a patient and a psychotherapist in a treatment setting typically involve far more intensely personal information than communications to other kinds of doctors, Doe v. Diamond, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328 (2d Cir.1992), delving into matters at the core of the human personality. It is notable that Miranda was principally directed toward the use of psychological, not physical, factors involved in an interrogation, toward protecting the “inviolability of the human personality.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 460, 86 S.Ct. at 1620. This unique case presents an unusual convergence between the privilege against self incrimination and the privilege of communications between a psychotherapist and patient