Are Rabbis protected by Privileged Communications Laws?

 Update 6/20/2012 I received the following letter as a response to my post which now follows the letter:

Rabbi Eidensohn,

Thanks again for posting on a subject that's both important and fascinating. I have some sources about the situation in New York State, which makes them somewhat tangential to your blog post. (Though N.Y. is, obviously, an important jurisdiction with respect to, e.g., Jewish child abuse cases.) A number of years ago I suffered harm because my layman's intuitions about the clergy-penitent privilege (in New York State) were, as my elders might have said, "_punkt verkehrt_". For the situation in New York, the Court of Appeals decision (2001) in Lightman v. Flaum frames many of the issues quite lucidly:

Lightman v. Flaum, 761 NE 2d 1027 - NY: Court of Appeals 2001 - Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17074219841436910036&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33 The earlier litigation in the case makes it easier to understand:

Lightman v. Flaum, 179 Misc. 2d 1007 - NY: Supreme Court 1999 - Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17330171931524873576&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33

Lightman v. Flaum, 278 AD 2d 373 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2000 - Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7886059926242344206&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33 It appears to me that it's not just the detailed provisions, but even the underlying _logic_ and _purpose_ of these laws, that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Every layman I know was surprise when they read Lightman v. Flaum.

P.S. A passage from Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege#United_States_of_America) might serve as a warning that things aren't necessarily intuitive: In twenty-five states, the clergyman-communicant statutory privilege does not clearly indicate who holds the privilege. In seventeen states, the penitent's right to hold the privilege is clearly stated. In only six states, both a penitent and a member of the clergy are expressly allowed by the statute to hold the privilege.

 ========================================================
 This was my original post:
Privileged communication for clergyman is not clearly defined in New Jersey. In other words a determined prosecutor probably could get charges to stick. There is also the important distinction of whether it is a confession or that the beis din is aware from other sources. Confession is the most likely protected knowledge.

The following is a government report summarizing the issues of clergy as mandated reporting

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.pdf

Privileged Communications
As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify the circumstances under which a communication is “privileged” or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communications may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure.4 If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.
This privilege, however, is not absolute. While clergy-penitent privilege is frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the context of child abuse or neglect. The circumstances under which it is allowed vary from State to State, and in some States it is denied altogether. For example, among the States that list clergy as mandated reporters, New Hampshire and West Virginia deny the clergy-penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Four of the States that enumerate “any person” as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.
In States where neither clergy members nor “any person” are enumerated as mandated reporters, it is less clear whether clergy are included as mandated reporters within other broad categories of professionals who work with children. For example, in Virginia and Washington, clergy are not enumerated as mandated reporters, but the clergy-penitent privilege is affirmed within the reporting laws. [which isn't true of New Jersey]