This remarkable case in New York was the topic of the KTAR David Leibowitz program today. A federal judge overturned a conviction of a man who killed two people because he ruled that conversations between members of Alcoholics Anonymous members have the same protected privilege as contacts between clerics and parishioners.

The judge, Charles Brieant of United States District Court in White Plains, cited previous cases in which courts had found that the authorities could not force prisoners or people on probation to attend A.A. meetings. Those courts ruled that such a requirement would violate the separation of church and state.

Since courts have found that A.A. is a religion for the purpose of church-state separation, the judge wrote, they must also hold that "disclosures of wrongs to fellow members as ordained by the 12 steps" of the A.A. program qualify as "a privilege granted to other religions similarly situated."

Should A.A. be granted the same treatment as lawyer/client, cleric/individual, therapist/patient relationships? It can be argued that in A.A. each individual is indeed performing as "therapist" for the rest of the group. The judge cited two cases as precedent whereby A.A. was granted "religous" status. I'll probally be lambasted as, unlike the show host, I agree with the ruling - the police and district attorney should have not relied on A.A. witness testimony for evidence even if that is what triggered the suspect identification. There's not enough information in the article and I don't know all the facts of the original trial prosecution, but I feel that, abhorrent as it is to set this guy free, the patient/client protections should be still kept intact.

Another thing I don't understand is how someone slashes up two people and gets convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. Tonight, I'll see if I can drudge up some more material on this case.