Quote:

the G-man said:
The original idea of the "spousal privilege" was also that marriage was a partnership built on trust. Not unlike the doctor-patient privilege or lawyer-client privilege, it was based on the idea that you should be able to trust your spouse with your secrets (within certain limiations).

Also, the privilege is for the defendant, not the witness, to claim. So the fact the guy copped a plea doesn't affect his "partner's" right to claim it as a defense.

It seems to me that, if allow gay marriage, you should allow the spousal privilege.

OTOH, if you don't apply the privilege to unmarried cohabitating hetero couples, you shouldn't apply it to unmarried cohabitating gay couples. To do so would be legislation from the bench and create a defense for gay criminals that doesn't exist for straight ones.



I can agree with that. I don't think a spouse should be compelled to testify against their mate. On the other hand if the mate is willing to testify, that's a different story. Regardless of marital status, I think the plea agreement on the partner's own substantial crimes and the interest of the state should prevail over any privilidge claim.

I know this would require a change in the laws of criminal proceedure. But surprise, surprise G-man! I'm siding with law enforcement over a defendents rights!