Wow! That guy was a titanic asshole. I can’t imagine why anyone would think they could act like that in a courtroom and get away with it.
An SVU rerun that I saw a couple nights ago did it. A woman had been convinced to testify against her husband, but she wasn’t permitted to at all. Specifically, any communication from her husband to her was excluded, and her outburst in the courtroom (in which she revealed some excluded information) resulted in a mistrial.
So in actually, a person may choose to testify as to private communication from their spouse?
What leads to the confusion about the “Spousal Privilege” is that, under the common law and in most states I’m familiar with there are two spousal privileges. To keep them straight, it is helpful, to me at least, is to remember the public policy reasons behind them.
Privilege #1: Right to keep spousal communication secret. This is to make couples feel like they can open up to one another during the marriage. Accordingly, this privilege only extends to communication during marriage. The privilege survives even if the couple is now divorced (though any communication that happened after the divorse would not be protected), but it doesn’t extend to communication made in front of another person or to communication that happened before marriage.
Privilege #2: The right not to be compelled to testify against a spouse at all. This is to keep homes as free as possible from anger over a currently ongoing lawsuit. This privilege is not limited to communication and can prevent a spouse from even taking the stand against their partner at all. This privilege does not survive the marriage, so if a couple is divorced, the testimony can happen. It is important to note that all states (that I am aware of) have statutorily ended this privilege if the allegation is that one spouse is the victim, in some way, of the other.
There are two kinds of spousal privilege. There is a privilege that protects spousal communications and a spousal privilege to prevent the spouse from testifying altogether.
According to this, New York doesn’t recognize a spousal testimonial privilege at all.
Michigan does, but the testifying spouse has the option to waive the privilege:
If you have access to such things, take a look at the Soong v. Schutter case that is cited in the opinion. Reading that one on paper you think, this guy is totally crazy, and he is, don’t get me wrong. But anyone who has been before Judge Soong understands what turned mister hand into mister fist, as it were.
[lawyer talk] He once denied a my motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) because there were “factual issues.” I moved to certify the denial for appeal. He intercepted the motion before the clerk could file it, sat on it for over a month, and then returned it to me, unfiled, with an “unofficial,” unfiled order saying that he wouldn’t certify the order for appeal because I hadn’t moved for reconsideration.[/lawyer talk].
Possible lack of mutuality. Not entirely clear whether prosecutor is in privity with the state. But see. http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/20040133.htm (under some circumstances, lawyers and clients are in privity.)
Hi Opal!
It was this article that reminded me of this issue. The article discusses the civil suit that Robert Blake’s second wife’s family has brought against him. Of course, collateral estoppel wouldn’t apply here because Blake won the trial against the state–not the family. No privity.
The egregious police misconduct that occurs would not be tolerated in real life,not to me anyway…it happens sure but the street dealers that are accosted don’t hardly go for it without a drawnout fight…they DARE police to try and mess with them,going in someones pockets and that nonsense,guys don’t stand for that.of course it happens,usually when a cop is planting something on you,but nobody shrugs it off and starts providing information…yeah right!
The same consideration is true for lots of TV series. I’ve read the same general sorts of remarks about Hill Street Blues and even Star Trek. Mostly, a space vessel on patrol would just be boring routine, star date after star date. You wouldn’t expect the same crew aboard the same vessel to have one dangerous blood-curdling adventure week after week IRL.
I stopped watching Law and Order and all criminal law shows after I became an actual lawyer. They’re so stupidly ridiculously inaccurate, they became painful to watch.
The most inaccurate thing in any of these shows is the lack of a 1 to 2 year wait for trial. OJ Simpson wanted the fastest trial he could get… 1 year later. Casey whatshername accused in Florida of murdering her child, acquitted after almost 3 years. Find the case of the 15-year-old arrested in the Bronx with the flimsiest of evidence, refused to take a plea, spent from age 15 to 18 - 3 years - in Rikers before the case was dropped. All the other inmates told him he was crazy, plead anyway and get out with time served. Makes you wonder about most guilty pleas.
The other issue was that they gloss over 100 other pieces of evidence. In the 1 out of what, 100 cases, where it’s not open-and-shut, there’s usually reams of evidence - people who saw the perp for a day or two before and after, etc. L&O will gloss over things like blood spatter and gunshot residue, fingerprints at the scene, unless crucial - to get just the key elements.
I don’t know if this is an “inaccuracy” as such, since my experience is in a different country, but the thing that most stood out for me when I started doing criminal law was the efficiency of the TV courts’ day-to-day operation. On L&O the lawyers go to court, get their business done, and leave. IRL (at least here), there’s a “sit around for a couple hours waiting for your case to be called” element that you never see on the show.
As a general rule, that’s not how it works. New York State has a really, really dumb version of the speedy trial rule (that frankly should have been squashed by SCOTUS years ago.) In most states, it’s a proper rule; in Florida, you must be brought to trial within 175 days for a felony (less for a misdemeanor.) In Anthony’s case, the delay was because she wasn’t ready to proceed to trial.
