First Charge on a Perfect Record

[You Are Guilty]

Can you all please stop quoting you-know-who because it defeats the entire purpose of:

This message is hidden because JIMinCA is on your ignore list.

Thanks.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

She can be subpoenaed regarding her statements of that night. If she decides to lie about the statements she made that night or state that she was lying when she saw him driving then she is gong to face charges. The prosecutor can use OP's statements.

A wife can't be compelled to testify against her husband.... or did you miss that episode of Law and Order??

Certainly the prosecutor can use the OPs statements. However, that is circumstantial at best. Any good attorney should be able to beat this charge.

So, just who are you trying to help anyway? The OP or the prosecutor? I don't remember a prosecutor ever coming here looking for help.

[Peligroso27]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

A wife can't be compelled to testify against her husband.... or did you miss that episode of Law and Order??

Certainly the prosecutor can use the OPs statements. However, that is circumstantial at best. Any good attorney should be able to beat this charge.

So, just who are you trying to help anyway? The OP or the prosecutor? I don't remember a prosecutor ever coming here looking for help.

Wrong again.

The law of evidence includes a privilege extended to a married couple so that neither a husband nor a wife can be compelled to testify against a spouse. This rule was designed to protect intrafamily relations and privacy. In addition, it was meant to promote communication between husbands and wives by making revelations between them strictly confidential.

The marital confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication protecting the contents of confidential communications between husband and wife. This privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. When applied, a court may not permit one spouse to testify against the other concerning confidential communications made during marriage.

The privilege generally applies only where both of the following fact situations are present: (1) a third party was not present during the communication (the presence of a third party would destroy the confidential nature of the communication), and (2) both parties intended that the communication be confidential.

The privilege is usually restricted to confidential communications made during marriage and does not include communications made before the marriage or after divorce. The privilege does, however, generally survive the divorce; that is, a person can be prevented from testifying about confidential communications with an ex-spouse made during the marriage.

The spousal testimonial privilege (a.k.a. "spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. Under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his spouse from testifying against him or her.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L. Ed. 2d 186, held that husbands and wives were permitted to testify against one another voluntarily in a federal criminal prosecution. Many states now allow a spouse to testify against a husband or wife, but with the caveat that the testimony is subject to the accused spouse's consent. Other states view the spouse of an accused person as an ordinary witness who can be forced to testify against the accused person. I believe that Vermont allows this as evident by Vermont vs. Thaw.

Any good attorney would not advise the OP to perjure themselves in court by lying about their actions. The wife would not be testifying against her husband, she would be testifying about the truth of her statements made to the police. You have once again proven that you have no grasp of this aspect or any other aspect of the law.

If she says that she lied because she was mad then she can be looking at charges for filing a false report. We are helping the OP by giving sound unbiased legal advice, not citing Law&Order as a reference for aspects of the law we don't understand. You may want to review the TOS and please stop wasting your time here.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

...
Certainly the prosecutor can use the OPs statements. However, that is circumstantial at best. Any good attorney should be able to beat this charge.
...

Maybe you should let Scott Peterson know this; he's serving a life sentence from a conviction based 100% on circumstantial evidence.

[JIMinCA]

Well, there are a bunch of prosecutors here. The fact is, this is not a murder case (i.e. Scott Peterson). This is a DUI case based on weak evidence. It was prompted from a domestic argument call. When called on a domestic issue, the prefered tactic for the cops is to take one person to jail (usually the man).... that way they don't have to come back out to visit later that evening. They don't really care what the charge is... just as long as they have them seperated for the evening. This flimsy DUI thing did the trick.

As I said in my original post, a lawyer would be a good idea. A competent attorney could likely get this whole issue dropped and it just becomes a bad memory. The case for the prosecutor (as described by the OP) is flimsy. However, you guys want to pretend that this is Osama Bin Laden on trial here and that the State has a real axe to grind. You can look at a worst case scenario... but you also have to consider the probability of that. I'm surprised that you guys weren't advising the OP that a meteor could fall from the sky and destroy the entire courtroom while they stood in it.

So.... you should ask yourself this question. Are you really hell-bent on showing the OP that her husband is going to jail, or are you just pissed off because someone may have been wrongly accused in your perfect world. Either way, everyone has told the OP that she and her husband should get a lawyer. Beyond that, you are just speculating. I merely pointed out that the prosecution has a tough case so she should not be too upset. Just what the hell is your point?

[cyjeff]

I have never heard of a case where the spouse making the 911 call was then allowed to recant her testimony under the spousal ruling.

Never.

In other words, the moment the OP decided to really teach her husband a lesson by bringing in 5-0, she voluntarily broke the confidentiality and can now be compelled to testify.

Same as in domestic violence cases...