Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell
(c) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in any civil proceeding in which the spouses are adverse parties, in any criminal proceeding in which a prima facie showing is made that the spouses acted jointly in the commission of the crime charged, or in any proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime or tort against the person or property of (i) the other, (ii) a minor child of either, (iii) an individual residing in the household of either, or (iv) a third person if the crime or tort is committed in the course of committing a crime or tort against any of the individuals previously named in this sentence. The court may refuse to allow invocation of the privilege in any other proceeding if the interests of a minor child of either spouse may be adversely affected.
23 posted on 06/12/2003 5:06:37 PM PDT by visualops (1 Left goes the wrong way, 2 Lefts go backwards, and 3 Lefts will make you dizzy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: visualops
visualops provided excerpt: "There is no privilege under this rule ... in any criminal proceeding in which a prima facie showing is made that the spouses acted jointly in the commission of the crime charged, ..."

This excerpt seems to address cases in which spousal privilege does not apply, whether a marriage has ended in divorce or not.

In the specific case mentioned, each spouse would be entitled to plead the fifth amendment. Perhaps then a grant of immunity to one spouse could then allow testimony to be compelled which might incriminate the other spouse.

I was not aware that spousal privilege required that one of the two be recognized somehow as being innocent of the crime being charged of the other.

Isn't there also a legal constraint on granting immunity to one member of a conspiracy in order to obtain testimony against the other conspirators? I have heard of co-conspirators copping a plea in exchange for testimony, but I thought perhaps that there can be no outright immunity to a co-conspirator.

I vaguely recall during the Watergate era that there was a legal necessity to name Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator". Failure to do this had some legal consequences which might have affected the cases of other conspirators. Perhaps a Freeper legal eagle can help out here.

29 posted on 06/13/2003 10:52:43 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson