Spousal privileges in the federal law - Legal Digest

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, August, 2003 by Robert Kardell

Endnotes

(1) There are two spousal privileges recognized in common law, the adverse spousal testimony and the marital communications privileges. These collectively will be referred to as spousal privileges.

(2) See PL 93-595 (HR 5463), January 2, 1975.

(3) Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906,911 (1980).

(4) FRE Rule 501 refers to both federal common law in criminal cases and state law in civil cases. As this summary was prepared to aid in the investigation of a federal criminal case, the review of common law will be limited to federal common law.

(5) Supra note 3 at 43 and 909.

(6) United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300, 304 (8th Cir. 1973).

(7) 290 U.S. 371, 54 S. Ct. 212 (1933).

(8) Incompetency, under common law in cases of spousal privilege, means disqualification because of a spouse's vested interest in the outcome of the trial.

(9) Supra note 3 at 51 and 912, quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331, 70 S. Ct. 724, 730 (1950) and Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 234, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 1454 (1960).

(10) Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 6, 74 S. Ct. 358, 361 (1954).

(11) Wolfe v. United States, 291 U.S. 7, 14, 54 S. Ct. 279, 280 (1934).

(12) Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1456 (9th Cir. 1983).

(13) Supra note 9 at 6 and 361 (1954).

(14) See United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2003).

(15) Supra note 13 (Espino) at 795.

(16) United States v. Leftkowitz, 618 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1980).

(17) United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1990).

(18) United States v. Roberson, 859 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988).

(19) Id. at 1381.

(20) Supra note 15 at 1318.

(21) Supra note 10 at 280.

(22) Supra note 10 at 16 and 281.

(23) United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440, 1446 (1Oth Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033, 118 S. Ct. 1327 (1998).

(24) United States v. Martinez, 44 F.Supp.2d 835,836 (W.D. Tex. 1999).

(25) Id. at 837.

(26) Supra note 16 at 730. But see United States v. Westmoreland, 312 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2002) (the joint crime exception to the marital communications provilege does not apply to communications before the spouse becomes a joint participant).

(27) United States v. Evans, 966 F.2d 398,401 (8th Cir. 1992) cert. denied 506 U.S. 988, 113 S. Ct. 502 (1992) quoting United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239, 1243 (6th Cir. 1985) cert. denied 473 U.S. 907, 105 S. Ct. 3533 (1985).

(28) 634 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1981).

(29) 111 F.3d 921,324 U.S.App.D.C. 162 (1997).

(30) Id. at 929 and 170.

(31) 358 U.S. 74, 79 S. Ct. 136 (1958).

(32) Supra note 3 at 41 and 908.

(33) Supra note 3 at 48 and 911, endnote 9.

(34) Wyatt v. United States, 362 U.S. 525, 527, 80 S. Ct. 901,904 (1960).

(35) Herman v. United States, 220 F.2d 219, 226 (CA4 1955).

(36) See generally United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d 1362 (CA8 1975).

(37) Supra note 3 at 52 and 913.

(38) Supra note at 52 and 913.

(39) Supra note at 53 and 914.

(40) United States v. Bolzer, 556 F.2d 948, at 951 (9th Cir. 1977).