In what circumstances will a defendant waive his privilege to exclude potentially incriminating evidence under the Miranda exclusionary rule?

Instead, the prosecutor argued defendant would waive his privilege to exclude potentially incriminating evidence under an exception to the Miranda exclusionary rule if he chose to testify, while the trial court adopted a federal court's analysis pertaining to a common law marital privilege (see Trammel v. United States (1980) 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 ) in ruling that defendant's testimony could be impeached with the otherwise privileged communication if he did so. But, while the statutory psychotherapist-patient privilege, the Miranda rule and the federal common law marital privilege all invoke the concept of a privilege, none is governed by the same analysis under California law.

The psychotherapist-patient privilege, like the lawyer-client privilege (Evid.Code, 954 ), the physician-patient privilege (Evid.Code, 994 ), the marital communications privilege (Evid.Code, 970 ) and the clergy-penitent privilege (Evid.Code, 1033 ), are contained in the Evidence Code to protect the privacy of certain confidential relationships. (See People v. Stritzinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 511, 194 Cal.Rptr. 431, 668 P.2d 738.) By contrast, the Miranda rule, invoked by the prosecutor, is an exclusionary rule (People v. Andreasen (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 70, 86, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 641 ) designed to protect a criminal defendant's full opportunity to exercise the privilege

[233 Cal.App.4th 1121]