Privilege Against Adverse Spousal Testimony

15 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Vaccaro
  816 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 85×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper, severance was not required, and evidence of other crimes was admissible under Rule 404(b). Aiding and abetting violations of the Travel Act do not require proof of knowledge of interstate facility use.
• Bisno v. United States
  299 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-21 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction regarding the defendant's wife's failure to testify, while potentially an error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence.
• United States v. Lefkowitz
  618 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the nondisclosure of an informant's identity as the defendant's estranged wife did not invalidate the search warrants, and the marital privileges did not preclude the use of the information.
• In re Grand Jury Empanelled October 18
  633 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-26 ·cited 30×
  A coercive contempt sanction may be imposed if the government seeks the husband's indictment before a different grand jury and severs any trial.
• United States v. Sims
  755 F.2d 1239· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that confidential marital communications concerning joint, patently illegal activity fall under the "joint participants" exception to the marital communications privilege.
• United States v. Emerson David Redstone
  488 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a wife's testimony against her husband, even if limited and accompanied by cautionary instructions, was prejudicial error that violated the privilege against adverse spousal testimony, requiring reversal of the husband's conviction. The court
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Mitchell Hermann
  664 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the privilege against adverse spousal testimony should be honored when a spouse is being investigated for conspiracy and the other spouse's testimony could incriminate them.
• United States v. Neal
  743 F.2d 1441· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding that certain spousal communications, even those related to criminal activity, may not be protected by the confidential marital communications privilege.
• In re Grand Jury Matter. Appeal of United States
  673 F.2d 688· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court did not reach the issue of court-awarded use-fruits immunity because it was not raised by the parties.
• In re the Grand Jury Subpoena OF Jean Ford v. United States
  756 F.2d 249· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a "use-fruits" immunity promise, coupled with a "Chinese Wall" screening procedure, is sufficient to overcome a witness-spouse's claim of privilege against adverse spousal testimony when the non-witness spouse is a target of the investigation.
• Izell J. Postom v. United States
  322 F.2d 432· D.C. Cir.· 1963-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that under D.C. Code § 306, a spouse is competent but not compellable to testify, and a defendant cannot prevent their spouse from testifying if the spouse chooses to do so.
• In re Martenson
  779 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the marital privilege against adverse spousal testimony was not available because the appellant failed to demonstrate that her anticipated testimony would be adverse to her spouse's protected interests.