WHILE PROHIBITING COMPELLED DISCLOSURE PROTECTS THE PSYCHIATRIC RELATIONSHIP, IT ALSO IMPEDES THE PROSECUTOR'S SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE DEFENSE CLAIM OF MENTAL INCAPACITY. IN 1975, THE THIRD CIRCUIT CONFRONTED THIS ISSUE IN UNITED STATES V. ALVAREZ AND RULED THAT BOTH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTY OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE PROTECT DEFENDANTS FROM COMPELLED DISCLOSURE OF PRETRIAL COMMUNICATIONS TO A DEFENSE PSYCHIATRIST. THE ALVAREZ COURT INQUIRED INTO SEVERAL GROUNDS OF PROTECTION BEFORE RELYING ON THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THIS NOTE EVALUATES THE ALVAREZ PROTECTIONS AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF EQUAL PROTECTION, PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS, AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND THE PSYCHIATRIST-PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WHILE REACHING A PROPER DECISION, NEGLECTED SIGNIFICANT ALTERNATIVE SAFEGUARDS (EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION) WHICH OTHER COURTS COULD RELY UPON TO PRESERVE PRETRIAL PSYCHIATRIC CONFIDENTIALITY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)