--- title: Bias Analysis – September 7, 2022 Clergy Privilege Motion Order url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-7-2022-clergy-privilege-motion-order/ date: 2025-04-11T23:45:14+00:00 modified: 2026-11-06T11:35:25+00:00 lang: en_US --- # Bias Analysis – September 7, 2022 Clergy Privilege Motion Order **Historical AI analysis** Model: ChatGPT 4o · Recorded publication date: April 11, 2025 This published AI analysis is preserved as part of Justice-Denied’s history. **Later reporting:** [Revisiting Our Early AI Analyses: The Record, the Law, and Our Experience](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/#historical-scores). ![ChatGPT 4o](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png) ## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis** **Preliminary Analysis of Judge Miller’s September 7, 2022 Order (Clergy Privilege)** **Bias Rating: -7 (biased toward Defendants)** ### Summary of Key Issues **1. Framing of the Issue:** Judge Miller frames Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order as overreaching, emphasizing that the emails were acquired “outside of discovery” and voluntarily by a third-party investigator from Pastor Lobb. However, this framing ignores the core dispute: whether those communications were protected under clergy-communicant privilege regardless of how they were obtained. > ⚠️ **Problematic Framing:** By focusing on “means of acquisition” (i.e., outside formal discovery), the order sidelines the critical question—**were the emails privileged**—and **whether Defendants intentionally bypassed proper legal procedures** to avoid privilege review. **2. Legal Standard for Clergy-Communicant Privilege:** Judge Miller accurately recites the legal test under *Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(c)* and *State v. Orfi*, requiring: - A minister; - Communication intended to be confidential; - Communication seeking spiritual advice. However, his analysis is **unduly narrow and dismissive** of the second and third prongs. For the emails between Craig and \[Craig’s daughter\] and Pastor Lobb—which discussed church doctrine and spiritual rejection—Miller finds they sought religious advice but denies privilege on the thin basis that confidentiality wasn’t “explicitly” stated. > ⚠️ **Elevated Burden:** The requirement of an affidavit or explicit statement of confidentiality **imposes a heightened and arguably unreasonable evidentiary burden**—especially given that these were deeply personal religious emails sent to a pastor. > 🔁 **Inconsistency:** In other areas of the same litigation, Judge Miller accepted silence or ambiguity to Defendants’ benefit (e.g., regarding destruction of messages). Here, he strictly penalizes Plaintiffs for the same ambiguity. **3. Dismissiveness Toward Plaintiffs’ Argument:** Judge Miller’s order **minimizes Plaintiffs’ concern about unilateral, undisclosed contact with their pastor**. He asserts that since no subpoena was issued, there was no violation of procedure, and that First Amendment protections prevent courts from dictating what clergy may share voluntarily. This overlooks a **major ethical concern**: Defendants **used an investigator to evade judicial oversight and deprive Plaintiffs of the opportunity to assert privilege** in a timely manner. > 🧨 **Ethical Double Standard:** Plaintiffs cited Defendants’ own prior objections to subpoenas on privilege grounds (e.g., attorney-client), but Miller fails to grapple with this inconsistency or explain why Defendants should now be permitted to circumvent notice protections. **4. Sanctions Against Plaintiffs:** The order grants Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees, claiming Plaintiffs’ motion was not substantially justified. This is especially severe given: - Plaintiffs cited relevant legal authorities; - Defendants initially offered partial destruction of documents; - Privilege claims had at least arguable merit. > 🚩 **Punitive Sanctions:** The award of fees signals hostility toward Plaintiffs’ attempt to assert privilege—especially troubling in a context involving sensitive religious communications. **5. Omissions and Overstatements:** Judge Miller: - Overstates the “voluntariness” of the disclosure without scrutinizing how the investigator presented the request. - Implies the emails were not private based on generic email formatting (“Bill & Amanda Lobb”) without any inquiry into customary pastoral communication norms. ### Hearing Transcript Context Plaintiffs’ counsel (Wolfgram) repeatedly emphasized: - **Defendants used a third party to sidestep privilege review**; - **This violated Plaintiffs’ rights to assert privilege before disclosure**; - **Defendants applied a double standard**, demanding confidentiality protections for their clients but denying them for Plaintiffs. Judge Miller acknowledged the arguments but appears to have **accepted Defendants’ framing wholesale**. For example: - He did not question why Defendants waited three months to disclose the emails. - He accepted defense counsel’s self-serving claims at face value (e.g., their claim that they “offered” to destroy the emails). - He showed no concern about potential prejudice from Defendants’ access to privileged religious content. ### Final Rating: **-7 (Highly Biased Toward Defendants)** - ✅ Correctly recites the legal standard for clergy privilege. - ❌ Applies that standard with **excessively narrow interpretations**, favoring Defendants. - ❌ Imposes **sanctions** against Plaintiffs despite a **good-faith argument** and significant constitutional/evidentiary concerns. - ❌ Treats the evasion of subpoena protocols as legally irrelevant, effectively **rewarding Defendants for circumventing discovery rules**. AI Bias Indicator Score −7 Strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants −7 −10 −5 0 +5 +10 Favors Defendants Neutral Favors Plaintiffs *AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.* *End of AI-generated analysisModel: ChatGPT 4o* AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence. ## Source records *Stevenson v. Stevenson*, Otter Tail County District Court, No. 56-CV-20-2928. Order: September 7, 2022 — Doc. 264 Hearing transcript: August 1, 2022 — Doc. 263 To locate these records, open [MCRO Document Search](https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch), enter **56-CV-20-2928**, and locate the listed document numbers in the **Index #** column.