Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, Bots, edit
57,719
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − + − + + + + +
→top: clean up & uniformity
Courts, in disregard of marital unity, have weakened this privilege in the past hundred years. Most notably, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 1980 abrogated the centuries-old right of someone to prevent his spouse from testifying against him. ''See Trammel v. United States'', 445 U.S. 40 (1980). As a result, in federal court today someone is allowed to testify against a spouse if the witness wants to (or is compelled to by a grant of immunity).
Courts, in disregard of marital unity, have weakened this privilege in the past hundred years. Most notably, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 1980 abrogated the centuries-old right of someone to prevent his spouse from testifying against him. ''See Trammel v. United States'', 445 U.S. 40 (1980). As a result, in federal court today someone is allowed to testify against a spouse if the witness wants to (or is compelled to by a grant of immunity).
[[Category:evidence]]
[[category:privileges]]
A similar, but independent, privileged protects communications made between spouses, which are intended to be confidential, from being disclosed in court:
{{cquote|Communications between the spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have been intended to be confidential, and hence they are privileged; but wherever a communication, because of its nature or the circumstances under which it was made, was obviously not intended to be confidential it is not a privileged communication. See Caldwell v. State, 146 Ala. 141, 143; 41 So. 473; Parkhurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386, 393; 18 N. E. 123; Truelsch v. Miller, 186 Wis. 239, 249; 202 N. W. 352. And, when made in the presence of a third party, such communications are usually regarded as not privileged because not made in confidence. Jacobs v. United States, 161 Fed. 694; Cocroft v. Cocroft, 158 Ga. 714; 124 S. E. 346; cf. Linnell v. Linnell, 249 Mass. 51, 143 N. E. 813, with Freeman v. Freeman, 238 Mass. 150; 130 N. E. 220.}}
''Wolfle v. United States'', 291 U.S. 7, 14-15 (1934)
[[Category:Evidence]]
[[Category:Privileges]]