Hubbry Logo
Spousal privilegeSpousal privilegeMain
Open search
Spousal privilege
Community hub
Spousal privilege
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Spousal privilege
Spousal privilege
Spousal privilege
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Evidence
Part of the law series
Types of evidence
Relevance
Authentication
Witnesses
Hearsay and exceptions
Other common law areas

In common law, spousal privilege (also called marital privilege or husband-wife privilege)[1] is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges that apply to spouses: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony and preventing spouses from condemning, or being condemned by, their spouses: the spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure, while spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify in proceedings relating to their spouse. However, in some countries, the spousal privileges have their roots in the legal fiction that a husband and wife were one person.

Around the world

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, federal case law dictates the privileges permissible and prohibited in federal trials,[2] while state case law governs their scope in state courts. A common rule for both the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege is that, "absent a lawful marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership, there is no privilege."[3] Both rules may be suspended depending on the jurisdiction in the case of divorce proceedings or child custody disputes, but are suspended in cases where one spouse is accused of a crime against the other spouse or the spouse's child. Courts generally do not permit an adverse spouse to invoke either privilege during a trial initiated by the other spouse, or in the case of domestic abuse. The privileges may also be suspended where both spouses are joint participants in a crime, depending on the law of the jurisdiction.[3]

Communications privilege

[edit]

In all federal and state courts, a spousal communications privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.[4] It is far less controversial than the testimonial privilege as it does not originate from the legal fiction that a husband and wife were one person.[4] Instead, it is rooted in the idea that those who are married should feel safe openly communicating with each other without fear of future litigation or criminal proceedings.[4]

In most jurisdictions including in federal courts, both the witness-spouse and the accused-spouse have the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the witness-spouse from testifying about a confidential communication made during the marriage even if neither spouse is a party in the trial.[4] It covers all communications made during marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between currently married spouses which occurred prior to their marriage.[4] Unlike testimonial privilege, the communications privilege survives the end of a marriage, and may be asserted by a spouse to protect confidential communications that were made during the marriage—even after divorce or death.[4]

The spousal communications privilege may not be invoked if the spouses are suing each other or each other's estates in a civil case; nor if one of the spouses has initiated a criminal proceeding against the other; nor in a competency proceeding regarding one of the spouses. These three scenarios are identical to the limitations which also apply to limit the spousal testimonial privilege. Two further scenarios defeat the spousal communications privilege: if the confidential communication was made in order to plan or commit a crime or fraud, or if a defendant-spouse wishes, in a criminal trial, to testify in their own defense, about a confidential marital communication.[4] In these five situations, a court will not allow either spouse to assert the privilege to block the testimony.[citation needed]

The privilege may not be invoked if the statements were not intended to be confidential.[4] Statements are not confidential if they were made in front of a third party or with the expectation that they would be shared with others.[4] However, the presence of a young child does not negate the confidentiality of the communication. The opposing party must rebut the presumption that confidentiality was intended.[4]

Testimonial privilege

[edit]

Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[5] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.[3]

Spousal testimonial privilege covers observations, such as the color of the clothing the party-spouse was wearing on a certain day, as well as communications, such as the content of a telephone conversation with the party-spouse.[citation needed]

The holder of the privilege may invoke it regarding events which occurred (1) during the marriage, if the spouses are still married; and (2) prior to the marriage if they are married to their spouse in court proceedings at the time of trial. If, by the time the trial occurs, the spouses are no longer married, the privilege holder may testify freely about any events which occurred prior to, after, or even during the marriage. Spousal testimonial privilege may not be invoked if the spouses are suing each other or each other's estates in a civil case; if one of the spouses has initiated a criminal proceeding against the other; or in a competency proceeding regarding one of the spouses.[3] Spousal testimonial privilege, in other words, only lasts as long as the marriage does.[6]

A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[7]

England and Wales

[edit]

Testimonial privilege

[edit]

This privilege is one aspect of a long-established rule of evidence, in its origin a common law rule, that a party to legal proceedings shall not be required to testify against himself. Deriving from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person, it extends the defendant's protection against self-incrimination to his wife also.[8]

At common law, accordingly, prior to 1853 the wife of a party in a case was not competent to give evidence for or against him (so could not do so even voluntarily).

In civil cases, the common law rule was abolished by the Evidence Amendment Act 1853, section 1 of which provided that one spouse was generally competent to give evidence against the other (i.e. in a civil suit could do so voluntarily) and could be compelled to do so (i.e. by the other party, not being the other spouse).[9] This was extended by the Evidence Further Amendment Act 1869 to proceedings actually brought by the other spouse, in consequence of adultery (i.e. relating to the marriage), the position on compulsion being clarified in Tilley v Tilley (1949).[10]

In criminal cases, however, the common law long held that wives were not competent to give evidence against their husband (i.e. for the prosecution), subject to the one exception that a wife could give such evidence where her husband was accused of personal violence against her.[8]

Section 4(1) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898[11] made spouses competent to give evidence against one another in many more circumstances, including giving evidence for the defence. It was initially assumed that the Act also meant spouses could be compelled to give such evidence, but the House of Lords ruled otherwise in Leach v R (1912).[8]

Distinguishing Leach, the Court of Criminal Appeal held in R v Lapworth (1930) that a wife was nevertheless a compellable witness for the prosecution in cases of personal violence against her, on the basis that the common law position prior to the 1898 Act had not been affected by the Act.[8] However, in Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1978) the House of Lords overruled Lapworth, ending the personal violence exception, ruling that spouses are competent but not compellable witnesses for the prosecution in all cases, thus restoring the 1912 decision in Leach.[8] In reaching this view, judges were swayed by the special status of marriage, and the "natural repugnance" that the public would feel at seeing a wife give evidence against her husband in a wide range of scenarios.[9]

This absolute immunity lasted only until the entry into force of section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which restored in limited cases the ability of the prosecution to compel the testimony of the spouse of the accused (later amended to include civil partners), namely where the defendant has been charged with "assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to" the spouse or a child under 16, or a sexual offence toward a child under 16.[9] In addition, under the 1984 Act, the defence can almost always compel the spouse to testify,[9] and as set out in section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 a spouse will generally be competent to offer testimony voluntarily.[12] However, a spouse (or civil partner) who is an active co-defendant to the charge can only testify for the defence (and cannot be compelled to do so by either side), part of her own right to the privilege against self-incrimination.[9] No privilege extends to couples who are co-habiting but are neither married nor in a civil partnership,[12] a source of major criticism.[9]

The 1984 Act also repealed section 43(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, in a further extension of the wife's protection from violence directed against her (which had protected the husband from the wife giving evidence on a charge of marital rape).[13]

It may be prudent to be cautious about seeking to compel a spouse to give evidence against her will, as it may tend to bring the law into disrepute. According to the Crown Prosecution Service, it is questionable whether she will tell the truth under those circumstances, and she may become a hostile witness, circumstances which must tend to reduce the credibility of her evidence.[14]

Communications privilege

[edit]

This form of privilege, restricting the admissibility into evidence of communications between spouses during a marriage, existed in English law from 1853 until it was abolished in 1968 (for civil cases) and in 1984 (for criminal cases).

The existence of a communications privilege in the common law (i.e. in case law) is disputed. Its existence was assumed by late nineteenth century writers, but in 1939 Sir Wilfred Greene, MR, noted in the Court of Appeal in Shenton v Tyler [15] that having researched the subject he found no evidence to support this view[16][17] and that, rather, any such privilege was solely the result of statute.

In particular Sir Wilfred cited, as the sole origin of the privilege, section 3 of the Evidence Amendment Act 1853 which provided that, in civil cases, "no husband shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during the marriage, and no wife shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during the marriage". This provision was based on the Second Report of the Commissioners on Common Law Procedure, who referenced the "inviolability of domestic confidence".[10] It was repeated in section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898,[18] which extended its applicability to the criminal law.

The provision made in the 1853 Act was limited – it did not extend to third-party disclosure, nor prevent voluntary disclosure – and was asymmetric, as it did not prevent the utterer from being compelled to disclose communications, only the listener (i.e. it acted only as a modified form of the rule against hearsay).[10] As a result, in the Report on Privilege in Civil Proceedings published in December 1967 (partly influenced by the reasoning in Shenton v Tyler, where the Court of Appeal had refused to apply it) the English Law Reform Committee recommended its abolition in civil cases, which was done in the Civil Evidence Act 1968, and in criminal cases, which was eventually done in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.[10]

Ireland

[edit]

Generally, spouses cannot be compelled to give evidence against their partners as it forces them to choose between giving truthful evidence - thereby jeopardising their relationship - and giving unreliable evidence.

A 2019 Court of Appeal ruling found the protection to not testify against one's spouse extends only to married couples and not civil partnerships or other forms of relationships.

Scotland

[edit]

As of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 spouses and civil partners are compellable witnesses.[19]

Australia

[edit]

In Australian law, both the common law privilege of confidentiality between married people and the privilege of spouses not to testify against each other were assumed to have continued with the "reception" of English law.[20]

On 30 November 2011, the High Court of Australia decided[21][22] that neither privilege existed in common law – seemingly influenced (in regard to marital communications) by the English decision to that effect in 1939 in the case of Shenton v Tyler, and (in regard to privilege against testimony) the fact that by 1898 the old common law rule had been abolished in English law (i.e. whilst Australia was still a set of British colonies).

For legal purposes, the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land had formally adopted English common law in 1828, and each of the other Australian colonies adopted the common law of New South Wales upon their founding.

However, a form of spousal privilege in criminal trials was for a long time preserved in Australian statute law, by the Evidence Acts.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Spousal privilege

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Spousal privilege, also termed marital privilege, comprises two core evidentiary protections rooted in : the confidential communications privilege, which precludes disclosure of private marital conversations made during a valid , and the adverse spousal privilege, which in certain jurisdictions shields a from compulsory against their partner in criminal matters. The communications privilege aims to foster unreserved spousal candor by assuring , enduring post-divorce and invocable by either , while the privilege—more variably applied—seeks to safeguard marital unity by averting state coercion of betrayal, though it typically resides with the witness- alone and excludes non-communicative observations. These doctrines trace to medieval English , evolving from broader spousal incompetency rules that deemed wives legally subsumed under husbands, toward modern rationales emphasizing institutional preservation over individual autonomy. In the United States, federal courts recognize both privileges under the , but the Supreme Court in Trammel v. United States (1980) curtailed the testimonial privilege, vesting it exclusively in the witness-spouse to reconcile marital protection with the imperatives of truth-finding in trials, thereby allowing prosecutors to compel testimony absent spousal objection. State variations abound, with some abolishing the testimonial aspect outright or limiting it to criminal proceedings, while communications remain robustly upheld. In , the testimonial privilege has been abrogated, rendering spouses competent witnesses subject to compulsion, though confidential marital communications retain protection against disclosure to preserve relational trust. Other jurisdictions, such as and , similarly prioritize communications privilege but impose exceptions for testimonial claims in intra-spousal or child-related offenses. The privileges' defining tensions arise from their clash with prosecutorial needs, particularly in prosecutions where victims may invoke testimonial immunity to avoid testifying against abusers, or where communications reveal crimes yet remain shielded, prompting legislative carve-outs for offenses against the or dependents in numerous U.S. states and elsewhere. Critics contend these rules empirically impede by enabling evidentiary gaps in familial crimes, rooted in outdated assumptions of perpetual harmony that falter amid asymmetric power dynamics like , though defenders invoke first-principles in intimate bonds against expansive state intrusion. Such reforms underscore a causal shift: privileging relational sanctity yields to targeted truth-seeking where marital bonds demonstrably harbor harm rather than harmony.

Definition and Core Principles

Testimonial Privilege

The spousal testimonial privilege, also known as the adverse spousal testimony privilege, prevents a from being compelled to testify against their current in criminal proceedings. This privilege is distinct from the confidential communications privilege, as it applies broadly to any testimony that could harm the defendant-, rather than solely to private marital exchanges. In federal courts, it derives from and is preserved under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which codifies privileges as interpreted by courts in light of reason and experience. The privilege is held exclusively by the witness-spouse, meaning the testifying decides whether to invoke it and refuse to testify; the defendant- cannot unilaterally assert it to silence the witness. This holder-controlled nature reflects judicial recognition that forcing testimony could irreparably damage marital relations, but it also allows a to choose disclosure if desired, as affirmed in cases like Trammel v. United States (1980), where the U.S. modified the rule to vest control solely in the witness to promote truth-seeking in trials. The privilege terminates upon or , applying only during a valid at the time of the proceeding. Primarily applicable in criminal cases where one spouse is the , the privilege does not extend to civil proceedings or cases where spouses are adverse parties, such as or disputes. Exceptions include regarding crimes committed by the against the witness-spouse or their children, joint crimes, or proceedings involving child welfare, as these undermine the rationale of preserving marital harmony. State laws vary; for instance, some jurisdictions like limit it further in cases, while federal practice emphasizes its narrow scope to avoid shielding relevant .

Confidential Communications Privilege

The confidential communications privilege, also known as the marital communications privilege, protects certain private exchanges between spouses from compelled disclosure in judicial proceedings. This privilege applies to communications made during a valid that are intended to be confidential, meaning they occur privately between the spouses without the presence or intended knowledge of third parties. It operates independently of the testimonial privilege, focusing solely on the content of the communication rather than the act of testifying. Under , as preserved by Federal Rule of Evidence 501, the privilege shields such communications in both civil and criminal cases, with either holding the right to assert it to prevent disclosure by themselves, the other , or third parties who may have overheard. The protection extends beyond the marriage's dissolution, safeguarding communications made while the marital relationship existed, but it does not cover statements made after or separation. For a communication to qualify, it must foster marital trust, such as discussions of personal matters, finances, or advice, but routine or business-related exchanges may not receive protection if lacking intimacy. Key exceptions limit the privilege's application to prevent . It does not protect communications intended for further disclosure, those made in the presence of third parties, or joint criminal acts where spouses conspire together, as these undermine the rationale. In cases involving crimes against the or their children, many jurisdictions override the privilege to prioritize victim protection, reflecting a policy shift toward accountability in intra-family offenses. Communications facilitating ongoing or future crimes also fall outside protection, ensuring the privilege does not shield illicit planning. State variations exist; for instance, some require the communication to be made in reliance on marital confidence, while federal courts emphasize evidentiary relevance under precedents. Historically rooted in English from the , the privilege evolved to preserve marital unity by excluding spousal on private matters, distinct from broader competency rules abolished in the U.S. by . U.S. decisions, such as Trammel v. (1980), refined related testimonial aspects but upheld communications protection under Rule 501's framework, balancing privacy against truth-seeking in trials. This enduring doctrine underscores causal incentives for open spousal dialogue, though critics note its potential to obscure evidence in high-stakes cases absent narrow exceptions.

Key Distinctions Between Privileges

The spousal testimonial privilege, also known as the adverse spousal privilege, prevents one from being compelled to testify against the other in criminal proceedings, encompassing any adverse regarding events occurring before or during the . In contrast, the confidential communications privilege safeguards only those private communications—verbal, written, or gestural—made between spouses during the with the intent of , applicable in both civil and criminal cases. This narrower focus excludes non-communicative observations, acts, or third-party disclosures, distinguishing it from the testimonial privilege's broader bar on compelled . A core distinction lies in duration and survival: the testimonial privilege exists only while the marriage remains valid and terminates upon , death, or , rendering former spouses compellable witnesses. The communications privilege, however, persists indefinitely, protecting qualifying marital exchanges even after the relationship ends, including posthumously, to preserve the sanctity of past confidences. Invocation and waiver rights further diverge. Under , as clarified by the U.S. in Trammel v. United States (445 U.S. 40, 1980), the testimonial privilege belongs exclusively to the witness , who may invoke it to refuse testifying or it voluntarily, overriding any objection from the defendant . Conversely, the communications privilege is jointly held, allowing either (or the personal representative of a deceased ) to assert it and prevent disclosure by the other, with requiring mutual or circumstances indicating intent to relinquish , such as sharing with third parties. Exceptions apply to both but operate differently due to their scopes. Neither privilege shields testimony or communications in prosecutions for crimes against the spouse, minor children, or in joint criminal enterprises in many jurisdictions; however, the testimonial privilege's termination post-marriage exposes broader testimony to such exceptions, while communications remain protected unless the exchange itself facilitated the crime or lacked confidentiality. Jurisdictional variations exist—some states retain defendant-held testimonial rights pre-Trammel—but federal evidence rules under FRE 501 codify these common-law distinctions, emphasizing marital harmony without unduly obstructing justice.
AspectTestimonial PrivilegeConfidential Communications Privilege
Primary ScopeAny adverse testimony in criminal casesConfidential marital communications in civil/criminal cases
DurationLimited to valid marriageIndefinite, survives divorce/death
Holder/InvocationWitness spouse (federal: post-1980)Either spouse (joint)
WaiverPersonal to witness; voluntary by themRequires consent from both or loss of confidentiality
Key ExceptionsCrimes against spouse/children; ends with marriageNon-confidential exchanges; crimes against spouse/children; third-party presence

Historical Origins and Evolution

Common Law Foundations

The foundations of spousal privilege originated in English under the of , which treated and wife as a single legal entity, subsuming the wife's identity into the 's and rendering spouses incompetent to testify for or against each other to avoid self-incrimination. This incompetency rule stemmed from medieval principles where interested parties, including family members, were deemed unreliable es, compounded by the metaphysical unity of spouses that precluded one from acting as a against the other. The earliest documented instance occurred in Bent v. Allot (1580), a Chancery case in which the court suppressed a wife's against her in a civil dispute over property, establishing the precedent that spousal adverse to the marital unit was inadmissible. Distinct from this testimonial incompetency, the confidential communications privilege emerged to safeguard private exchanges between spouses during marriage, independent of general testimonial bars. Recognized as one of the oldest evidentiary privileges in English , it first appeared explicitly in 1684 during of Lady Ivy, where courts upheld the non-disclosure of marital confidences to preserve trust within the union. This privilege applied only to communications made in confidence, excluding observations or non-verbal acts, and required proof of at the time of the exchange. By the , these foundations had coalesced into two core privileges: the adverse spousal testimonial privilege, vesting in the to bar the 's , and the communications privilege, jointly held by both spouses to prevent disclosure of confidential marital discussions. English courts justified both on dual grounds—preventing domestic discord and upholding the sanctity of as a confidential —though the unity doctrine's patriarchal underpinnings prioritized spousal harmony over truth-seeking in . These principles were transplanted to American colonies and persisted until statutory reforms began eroding absolute incompetency in the .

19th and 20th Century Developments

In England, the Evidence Amendment Act of 1853 marked the first statutory codification of the confidential marital communications privilege, stipulating that no husband could be compelled to disclose communications made to him by his wife during marriage, nor vice versa, thereby formalizing a protection previously recognized in common law precedents. This legislation influenced American evidence law, where states during the mid- to late 19th century began enacting reforms to the common law rule of absolute spousal incompetency, permitting testimony in limited criminal contexts such as cases of bigamy, adultery, or violence against the spouse or children. These changes reflected a gradual prioritization of truth-finding in prosecutions involving intra-marital harm over unqualified marital unity, though the testimonial privilege against adverse spousal evidence endured in most jurisdictions. In the , early 20th-century federal jurisprudence further eroded spousal incompetency with the Supreme Court's decision in Funk v. United States (1933), which held that 28 U.S.C. § 632—requiring witnesses to testify unless exempted by or —abrogated the bar on a providing favorable for the in criminal trials, emphasizing that no such exemption was compelled. The ruling preserved the adverse privilege, however, allowing the defendant- to block unfavorable to safeguard marital harmony, while the confidential communications privilege remained largely unchanged as a joint assertion protecting pre-divorce exchanges. By the mid-20th century, state variations proliferated: as of , 25 states had enacted statutes recognizing spousal competency to testify adversely (often with exceptions for confidential matters), and 13 had explicitly codified the communications privilege, amid broader code modernization efforts. The American Law Institute's Model Code of (1942) and the Uniform Rules of (1953) proposed reforms limiting the testimonial privilege to the witness- alone, critiquing the defendant-controlled version for obstructing relevant in criminal proceedings, though federal adoption lagged until later decades. These developments balanced evidentiary needs against traditional rationales, with empirical critiques emerging on the privilege's role in shielding criminality despite declining marital permanence.

Post-1980 Reforms and Shifts

In 1980, the U.S. in Trammel v. United States fundamentally altered the federal adverse spousal testimonial privilege, holding that only the witness-spouse holds the right to refuse to testify against a defendant-spouse in criminal proceedings, rather than the defendant-spouse controlling the privilege as under prior . This decision shifted the privilege from protecting the marital unit at the expense of truth-seeking to empowering the individual spouse's autonomy, reflecting critiques that the older rule unduly shielded defendants in cases involving joint criminality or spousal . Post-Trammel, federal courts apply this witness-centered approach, excluding the defendant-spouse's ability to block testimony, though the privilege remains waivable by the witness and subject to exceptions for crimes against the spouse or children. Following Trammel, numerous states reformed their testimonial privileges to align with the witness-spouse control model or abolished it outright in criminal contexts, prioritizing prosecutorial access to relevant evidence over presumptive marital protection. By the early 2000s, at least 17 states had eliminated the adverse spousal testimonial privilege in criminal cases, often citing its incompatibility with modern evidentiary needs in intra-family offenses like or . For instance, jurisdictions such as and New York retained limited versions but carved out exceptions for ongoing or recent marital harms, allowing testimony in cases where the witness-spouse's interests diverged from the defendant's. This trend accelerated amid empirical concerns that the privilege obstructed justice in approximately 10-15% of domestic-related prosecutions, based on state bar analyses urging abolition to facilitate victim testimony. The confidential marital communications privilege, by contrast, endured with fewer post-1980 erosions at the federal level, continuing to shield private spousal exchanges made in confidence during valid marriages, irrespective of who invokes it. However, state-level challenges emerged, notably in New Mexico's 2019 State v. Gutierrez decision, where the prospectively abolished the communications privilege in criminal trials, arguing it hindered truth-finding without sufficient empirical support for preserving marital harmony over public safety. This ruling was short-lived, with reinstatement following legislative and judicial reconsideration, underscoring tensions between doctrinal inertia and calls for evidence-based exceptions in high-stakes cases like or . Overall, these shifts reflect a broader evidentiary evolution favoring case-specific relevance under rules like Federal Rule of 501, which codifies privileges via "reason and experience" rather than rigid common-law holdovers.

Rationales for Existence

Protection of Marital Harmony

The testimonial privilege against adverse spousal testimony serves to safeguard marital harmony by shielding spouses from the compulsion to betray one another in legal proceedings, thereby averting the discord that could arise from such coercion. This rationale, rooted in common law principles, posits that forcing one spouse to testify against the other risks irreparable strain on the marital bond, as the act of disclosure—particularly in criminal matters—could engender lasting resentment or erode mutual trust. In Trammel v. United States (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court refined this privilege to vest control in the witness-spouse, arguing that this adjustment better promotes harmony by allowing the testifying spouse to decide without unilateral veto from the defendant, thus preventing the privilege from being weaponized to suppress truth at the expense of relational stability. Empirical support for this protective effect remains limited, with legal scholars noting that the privilege's efficacy in preserving marriages depends on spouses' voluntary restraint rather than guaranteed outcomes, though historical precedents emphasize its role in upholding the institution of marriage against state intrusion. Complementing the testimonial privilege, the confidential communications privilege fosters marital harmony by ensuring that private exchanges between spouses remain shielded from disclosure, thereby encouraging uninhibited dialogue essential to relational intimacy. This protection applies to utterances made in confidence during the , surviving even dissolution, with the underlying logic that fear of compelled revelation would deter spouses from sharing vulnerabilities, leading to emotional isolation and weakened partnerships. Courts have upheld this on grounds that open communication underpins marital cohesion, as evidenced in federal rules like Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which implicitly endorses privileges conducive to such bonds; for instance, disclosures intended solely for spousal reassurance—absent third-party presence—are deemed privileged to prevent retrospective marital fracture. While critics question its necessity in an era of diverse family structures, proponents assert that without this bulwark, everyday confidences could unravel unions, drawing from 19th-century precedents where the privilege emerged to prioritize spousal candor over evidentiary completeness. Together, these privileges embody a causal view that marital thrives on reciprocal and , insulated from external pressures like litigation; state interference via mandates or communication exposure could causally precipitate relational breakdown, as spouses navigate divided allegiances. Legal analyses, including those from the Department of , consistently frame this as a policy choice favoring the presumptive value of intact marriages over comprehensive fact-finding, though application requires proof of and , excluding joint criminal enterprises where is already compromised. This rationale persists in jurisdictions retaining robust spousal protections, underscoring a first-principles commitment to as a foundational social unit warranting evidentiary deference.

Prevention of Familial Division by State

The spousal testimonial privilege, also known as the adverse spousal testimony privilege, primarily operates to shield the marital unit from state compulsion that could fracture familial bonds by forcing one to incriminate the other. Under this doctrine, a witness- cannot be compelled to provide against a defendant- in criminal proceedings while the subsists, reflecting a longstanding policy aversion to the "repugnance for the idea of convicting a man or woman by his or her 's ." This mechanism counters the prosecutorial power of the state, which, absent the privilege, could and coerce spousal evidence, thereby injecting governmental authority directly into the core of decision-making and loyalty. By insulating spouses from such mandates, the privilege upholds the marital relationship as a private sphere insulated from external adversarial pressures that might otherwise precipitate and relational breakdown. Rooted in common law principles dating to the 18th century, the privilege evolved from the fiction that husband and wife constitute a single legal entity, precluding internal division through testimony. This historical foundation emphasized preventing the legal system from exploiting spousal ties to generate evidence, as state-enforced testimony risks not only immediate discord but also long-term erosion of trust within the household, potentially destabilizing family units that serve as society's foundational social structures. In jurisdictions retaining a bilateral form of the privilege—where either spouse may invoke it—the rationale explicitly prioritizes familial cohesion over the state's truth-seeking imperatives, arguing that compelled spousal accusations undermine the voluntary harmony essential to child-rearing and mutual support. For instance, federal courts prior to the 1980 Trammel v. United States decision applied the privilege symmetrically to avoid any state-orchestrated pitting of spouses against one another, viewing such outcomes as antithetical to policies fostering stable domestic relations. Empirical support for this preventive role draws from policy analyses indicating that without the privilege, the pervasive of legal could inhibit candid familial discourse, mirroring how informant dynamics fracture communities. While reforms like Trammel shifted invocation to the witness-spouse alone—allowing if desired without compulsion—the underlying concern persists in state laws and scholarly defenses, where is defended as a bulwark against prosecutorial overreach that treats family members as mere extensions of state investigatory tools. Exceptions, such as for intra-family crimes like , underscore the targeted application: the state may intervene in cases of direct harm to dependents, but the general rule preserves the intact family from broader testimonial coercion that could otherwise propagate division. This delineation ensures the privilege functions prophylactically, deterring state actions that might otherwise normalize familial as a routine evidentiary source.

Privacy and Trust in Intimate Relationships

The marital communications privilege safeguards the of spousal exchanges to preserve the essential for trust in intimate relationships. By exempting private communications—such as verbal statements, letters, or gestures made with an expectation of non-disclosure—from compelled in civil or criminal proceedings, the rule enables spouses to share personal vulnerabilities without fear of evidentiary exploitation. This protection applies during the and endures post-dissolution or , reflecting the view that such candor fortifies relational bonds by mitigating that could otherwise stifle . Rooted in principles, the rationale emphasizes marriage's role as a for confidential reliance, as early U.S. courts described it as "the best solace of human existence" warranting shields against intrusive state demands. Without this evidentiary barrier, spouses might withhold incriminating or sensitive details, thereby eroding the mutual dependence and that define successful partnerships. The privilege's mutual invocation—by either —reinforces this trust-promoting function, distinguishing it from rules that prioritize individual choice over joint . Scope limitations ensure targeted application: only intended confidential communications qualify, excluding non-verbal observations or third-party-witnessed discussions, which courts enforce to balance privacy against broader fact-finding needs. This delineation underscores the privilege's aim to nurture unreserved dialogue in the marital sphere, where trust hinges on assured seclusion from public or legal scrutiny, even as critiques question its alignment with contemporary relational fluidity.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Obstruction of Justice in Criminal Cases

Critics of the adverse spousal testimonial privilege argue that it systematically obstructs the pursuit of truth in criminal trials by barring competent spousal that could establish guilt or innocence. This exclusion of probative undermines the fact-finding function of courts, as spouses often possess unique knowledge of a defendant's actions due to their intimate proximity. Legal evidence scholar John Henry Wigmore characterized the privilege as "an indefensible obstruction to truth in practice," emphasizing its tendency to prioritize marital policy over empirical verification of facts. Charles T. McCormick echoed this, deeming it "arbitrary and misguided" for shielding potentially incriminating observations or statements, even those made in third-party presence, unlike narrower privileges such as attorney-client. Historical and contemporary cases illustrate how the privilege has impeded prosecutions. In State v. Winnett (1907), an Idaho court barred a wife's testimony against her husband for raping her, invoking the testimonial privilege and effectively preventing the jury from hearing direct evidence of the crime, which critics cite as a clear miscarriage of justice. Pre-Trammel v. United States (1980), the defendant-spouse could unilaterally exclude adverse testimony, allowing criminals to silence key witnesses; for instance, a husband could block his wife's account of witnessing a non-spousal murder. Although Trammel reformed federal practice by vesting the privilege solely in the witness-spouse—thus enabling testimony if the witness consents—the reform does not eliminate obstruction where the witness invokes it due to coercion, fear, or misplaced loyalty, as in organized crime or fraud schemes reliant on spousal complicity. In prosecutions, the privilege exacerbates obstruction by permitting victim-spouses to refuse , potentially allowing abusers to evade accountability despite other gaps. While many jurisdictions carve out exceptions for crimes against the or children—such as under Washington's RCW 5.60.060(1)—these require litigation to establish applicability, often retraumatizing victims and delaying trials without guaranteeing . Critics further highlight "sham marriages" contracted to invoke the privilege, which can corruptly silence witnesses; in State v. Wilson (2020), Maryland's Court of Appeals reversed an obstruction conviction for such a , ruling that invoking a valid privilege does not inherently constitute corrupt intent under statutes, yet the practice underscores how the rule enables strategic evasion of justice. These critiques rest on that the privilege's aims—preserving marital harmony—frequently fail in practice, as criminal involvement already erodes trust, while exclusions distort verdicts based on incomplete evidence. Empirical undercurrents, such as higher rates in privilege-invoked cases, reinforce arguments for abolition or further narrowing, though courts weigh this against overbroad state intrusion into family .

Incompatibility with Modern Family Dynamics

Critics argue that spousal privilege, especially the adverse testimonial variant, presumes enduring marital harmony and unity incompatible with contemporary family instability, where roughly 50% of first marriages end in . This assumption of permanence, rooted in eras when was rare and women held subordinate as extensions of their husbands, fails to account for modern realities of serial partnerships, without marriage, and laws adopted nationwide by 1985, which facilitate dissolution without proving fault. In such contexts, spouses frequently operate as legal opponents in civil matters like asset division or , rendering testimonial protections that prioritize relational over truth-seeking anachronistic and prone to shielding wrongdoing in already fractured unions. The privilege's emphasis on preventing state-induced familial discord overlooks how high divorce rates—coupled with blended families and remarriages—have normalized adversarial spousal interactions, eroding the causal link between testimony and marital breakdown. For instance, in jurisdictions retaining defendant-held privileges, such as Washington State (one of four U.S. states without full adoption of the federal Trammel standard), the rule can compel silence from victim-spouses in intra-marital crimes, contradicting empirical shifts toward gender autonomy and victim-centered justice. Even under Trammel v. United States (1980), which vested refusal rights solely with the witness-spouse to mitigate these issues, communications privileges persist in blocking evidence from transient or abusive relationships, where trust has demonstrably collapsed. These dynamics amplify concerns in domestic violence prosecutions, where privileges historically barred testimony from abused spouses, as in early 20th-century cases like State v. Winnett (1907), forcing victims to relitigate trauma via exceptions rather than presuming their agency. While many jurisdictions now exempt spousal crimes from testimonial bars, the underlying framework—designed for economic and indissoluble unions—clashes with data showing s as optional, often short-term arrangements amid declining marriage rates (from 8.2 per 1,000 in 2000 to 6.1 in 2021). Opponents contend this fosters inefficiency, protecting dysfunctional bonds over evidentiary integrity in a where familial yields to public accountability for harms like intra-spousal violence.

Empirical Evidence on Privilege Outcomes

In criminal cases involving , invocation of the spousal testimonial privilege has been hypothesized to contribute to prosecutorial challenges, yet direct empirical quantification of its impact on rates or case dismissals is limited. Studies on prosecutions highlight high rates of victim non-cooperation, with up to 80% of victims failing to appear at trial, often resulting in dropped charges or acquittals due to insufficient evidence. This non-appearance is predominantly linked to extralegal factors such as fear of retaliation, emotional dependency, and perceived inefficacy of legal intervention, rather than formal assertions of privilege, particularly in jurisdictions adhering to the Trammel v. (1980) framework where the witness-spouse may elect to testify. Post-Trammel federal case analyses suggest the reform vesting testimonial control in the witness-spouse has facilitated greater spousal in trafficking and other non-domestic offenses, potentially aiding convictions without broad empirical tracking of aggregate outcomes. However, no large-scale longitudinal studies compare conviction rates before and after such shifts, leaving claims of systemic obstruction—common in critiques of the privilege—unsupported by causal data. In states retaining defendant-controlled privileges, like Washington, exceptions for intra-spousal mitigate potential barriers, but prosecutorial records do not isolate privilege invocations as decisive in acquittals. Broader evidentiary reviews indicate spousal privileges are invoked infrequently relative to case volume, with marital communications privilege more routinely applied than testimonial refusals, implying minimal distortion of overall outcomes. Absent comprehensive datasets from sources like the , assertions of the privilege's net effect—whether preserving marital stability or impeding truth-finding—rely more on anecdotal case examples than verifiable metrics, underscoring a gap in rigorous, data-driven evaluation.

Jurisdictional Variations

United States

Federal Framework and Trammel v.

In federal courts, spousal privilege consists of two primary components: the adverse spousal testimony privilege, which shields a spouse from compulsory against their partner in criminal cases, and the confidential marital communications privilege, which excludes private spousal exchanges from evidence. The , particularly Rule 501, govern these privileges by incorporating principles as interpreted and modified by the courts. The adverse spousal testimony privilege underwent significant alteration in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). Under prior common law, as established in cases like Hawkins v. United States (1963), the defendant-spouse could invoke the privilege to bar adverse testimony from their spouse, regardless of the witness-spouse's willingness. The Supreme Court in Trammel rejected this approach, ruling that the privilege vests exclusively in the witness-spouse, who alone may refuse to testify but cannot be prevented from doing so by the defendant. This 6-3 decision, authored by Justice William Rehnquist, reasoned that the modification preserves marital confidences through the communications privilege while facilitating truth-finding in criminal trials, especially where the witness-spouse seeks to expose non-marital offenses. The ruling applies prospectively to federal criminal proceedings and does not extend to civil cases or grand jury testimony. The confidential marital communications privilege, by contrast, remains intact and protects only those utterances or writings made in confidence during a valid marriage, irrespective of ongoing marital status. Either spouse—or the personal representative of a deceased spouse—may assert it in civil or criminal matters, and it endures post-divorce. Courts require proof of confidentiality, excluding overheard or non-private exchanges, and apply exceptions for joint criminal enterprises or communications induced by coercion. This privilege traces to 19th-century precedents and prioritizes encouraging open spousal dialogue over evidentiary completeness.

State-Level Differences and Exceptions

State jurisdictions exhibit substantial variation in spousal privilege application, with many adopting the Trammel framework for adverse testimony but others preserving elements of the pre-Trammel rule where the defendant-spouse holds veto power. As of 1980, sixteen states vested the testimonial privilege in the defendant or jointly, though post-Trammel reforms have led most to empower the witness-spouse's choice, reflecting a trend toward prioritizing victim testimony in criminal cases. For example, states like New York and align closely with , allowing the witness to decide, while a minority, such as , retain defendant control in limited contexts. These differences arise from state evidence codes, with some explicitly codifying Trammel-like rules and others adhering to traditional . The marital communications privilege enjoys broader uniformity across states, safeguarding confidential exchanges during marriage but subject to waiver if disclosed to third parties or made in furtherance of crime. Most states extend it indefinitely, unlike the testimonial privilege, which often dissolves upon or applies only during subsisting marriages. In civil proceedings, states frequently curtail or abolish the testimonial privilege to favor disclosure, as seen in or cases involving marital assets. Exceptions to both privileges are common and reflect imperatives. Testimonial privilege typically yields in cases of spousal or , intra-family felonies, or proceedings against minors, as statutes in jurisdictions like and mandate disclosure to protect vulnerable parties. Communications privilege similarly excludes coverage for jointly planned crimes or observations of criminal acts, ensuring it does not shield evidence of ongoing harm. These carve-outs, enacted through state legislatures or judicial gloss, underscore tensions between marital sanctity and prosecutorial needs, with empirical data from federal cases post-Trammel showing increased spousal testimony without widespread marital disruption.

Federal Framework and Trammel v. United States

In federal courts, spousal privileges are governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which directs courts to apply principles except as modified by the Constitution, federal statutes, or rules prescribed by the . This framework recognizes two distinct marital privileges: the confidential marital communications privilege, which protects private communications between made during a valid marriage and intended to be confidential, and the adverse spousal testimony privilege, which historically barred one from testifying against the other in criminal or civil proceedings. The communications privilege survives the end of the marriage and can be invoked by either , whereas the testimony privilege traditionally applied only during the marriage and was designed to prevent compelled adverse testimony that could disrupt marital harmony. These privileges stem from English roots but have been narrowed over time to balance evidentiary needs against marital sanctity, with federal courts exercising discretion to limit their scope where public interest demands, such as in cases involving joint criminal activity. Prior to 1980, the adverse spousal privilege, as established in Hawkins v. United States (1850), allowed the defendant to unilaterally prevent the from providing adverse , even if the wished to testify voluntarily. This rule aimed to shield marital relations from state intrusion but often shielded criminal defendants at the expense of truth-seeking, particularly when one sought to cooperate with authorities. The Supreme Court's decision in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), fundamentally reformed the federal adverse spousal testimony privilege. In the case, petitioner Otis Trammel was charged with conspiracy to import heroin; his wife, Elizabeth Trammel, granted immunity, provided voluntary testimony implicating him in the scheme, including non-confidential observations. Trammel invoked the Hawkins rule to exclude her testimony, but the district court admitted it except for privileged communications, a ruling affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. On February 20, 1980, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stewart, held that the privilege vests solely in the witness-spouse, who may choose to refuse or provide adverse testimony without compulsion or prohibition by the defendant-spouse. The Court reasoned that vesting control in the witness better preserves marital harmony by avoiding forced silence against the witness's will, while advancing the truth-finding function of trials; it noted that 28 states already limited the privilege similarly, reflecting a modern trend prioritizing testimonial competence over absolute defendant protection. This modification does not affect the confidential communications privilege, which remains intact for utterances evincing confidentiality. The ruling applies prospectively in federal proceedings, enhancing prosecutorial access to spousal testimony in cases like drug conspiracies or fraud, though critics argue it undermines marital trust by empowering one spouse to unilaterally expose the other.

State-Level Differences and Exceptions

In the , while the federal framework limits the adverse spousal testimonial privilege to the witness-spouse under Trammel v. (1980), state approaches diverge, with some retaining the defendant-spouse's control over whether the witness-spouse may testify adversely in criminal cases. A minority of jurisdictions, including Washington as one of four states preserving this traditional common-law rule, allow the defendant to invoke the privilege unilaterally to exclude spousal testimony. Conversely, numerous states follow the federal model, vesting the decision exclusively in the witness-spouse, who may choose to testify despite the defendant's objections. Others have eliminated the adverse privilege outright; , for example, provides no such protection, deeming spouses competent and compellable witnesses in criminal proceedings and limiting marital evidentiary safeguards to confidential communications under Florida Statute § 90.504. Exceptions to recognized privileges typically exclude application in prosecutions for crimes against the or minor children of either , enabling victim to support and welfare objectives. For the marital communications privilege, which persists more uniformly across states, the vast majority—over 40—abrogate protection when one faces charges for offenses against the other, such as or . Additional state-specific limitations may apply to joint criminal acts or proceedings involving , reflecting priorities for public safety over absolute marital confidentiality.

England and Wales

In , spousal privilege provides limited protections centered on a qualified restriction on prosecutorial compellability in criminal proceedings and a rule safeguarding confidential marital communications, prioritizing evidentiary needs over absolute marital immunity. This framework evolved from doctrines of spousal incompetence, which historically barred to preserve marital , toward greater competence with targeted exceptions to facilitate in cases of harm within the family unit. The rules apply to legally married spouses or civil partners, excluding cohabitants, and reflect empirical considerations that voluntary spousal often suffices without compulsion in non-abusive contexts, while mandating it for offenses like to protect victims.

Testimonial and Communications Rules

Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, spouses and civil partners are competent witnesses in criminal trials, able to testify voluntarily for the prosecution, defense, or co-defendants, but the prosecution faces restrictions on compellability. A cannot be compelled to testify against the accused except for specified offenses, which include those involving willful , , or threats to the themselves or a person under 16 in their care; sexual offenses against a person under 16; ; or aiding, abetting, or attempting such acts. This limitation does not apply to testimony for the defense, where spouses remain fully compellable, nor does it extend to civil proceedings, where spouses have been competent and compellable since the Civil Evidence Act 1968 abolished prior incompetency rules. The design accommodates the reality that spousal reluctance to testify often stems from relational dynamics rather than legal barriers, with data from criminal cases indicating higher conviction rates when compulsion is available in scenarios. The marital communications privilege, rooted in and preserved post-statutory changes, prevents disclosure of private communications made in confidence between spouses during the , applicable in both civil and criminal contexts. Either may invoke this privilege to block testimony or production of regarding such communications, even after or death, provided the exchange occurred while married and retained its confidential character—excluding, for instance, statements made in the presence of third parties or non-private settings. This protection does not shield observations of spousal conduct or non-communicative acts, nor does it extend to communications intended to further , balancing against public interest in evidence admissibility.

Legislative Reforms

Reforms began with the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, section 1, which rendered spouses competent to testify for the prosecution in criminal cases where the offense was committed against the spouse or their child under 10 (later expanded), marking a shift from absolute common law incompetence that dated to medieval precedents treating spouses as legally unified. Compellability was not conferred by this Act; the House of Lords in Leach v The Queen AC 305 clarified that spouses remained non-compellable for the prosecution despite competence, prioritizing marital harmony over prosecutorial demands in non-personal offenses. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, enacted on October 31, 1984, and effective from 1986, consolidated and refined these rules in section 80, introducing explicit compellability for the specified offenses while repealing outdated provisions like section 1(d) of the 1898 Act on communications, thereby affirming the common law privilege's endurance without statutory overlay. These changes responded to Law Commission recommendations and case law critiques highlighting inconsistencies, such as pre-1984 disparities where spouses could evade testimony in serious non-violent crimes, and incorporated protections for children and vulnerable adults amid rising awareness of intra-familial abuse, with no substantive amendments since despite periodic reviews.

Testimonial and Communications Rules

In , the testimonial rule governing spousal in criminal proceedings is codified in section 80 of the and Criminal Act 1984 (PACE). Under this provision, a of the accused is competent to testify for all purposes but is not compellable as a unless the case involves specific exceptions, such as offences against the person of the themselves, sexual offences against a under 16, or offences of , ill-treatment, or against a under 16 or an adult lacking mental capacity. This non-compellability aims to preserve marital harmony by protecting the from the dilemma of testifying against their partner, though the accused cannot prevent voluntary . In practice, this rule applies only during the subsistence of the at the time is given; former spouses are fully compellable. The marital communications privilege, distinct from testimonial compellability, protects confidential communications made between during the from disclosure in both civil and criminal proceedings. Originating from section 3 of the Evidence (Amendment) Act 1853 and preserved under section 16 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 for civil matters, this privilege extends to criminal cases under principles, allowing either —or the personal representative of a deceased —to invoke it to withhold evidence of private marital exchanges. The privilege is absolute for qualifying communications, which must be confidential (not made in the presence of third parties) and made during a valid , surviving even after or . It does not cover observations of acts or non-communicative conduct, only verbal or written exchanges intended to be private. Exceptions to the communications privilege are narrow and typically arise if the communication was made in furtherance of a crime or joint illegal purpose, where overrides , as established in such as R v. Pitt (1983), which limited the privilege's scope to prevent its use as a shield for criminality. Courts assess on a case-by-case basis, excluding routine or non-intimate discussions, and the privilege cannot be waived unilaterally by one without mutual in adversarial contexts. These rules reflect a balance between protecting intimate trust and ensuring access to relevant , with the burden on the claiming to prove the communication's protected status.

Legislative Reforms

The primary legislative reform to spousal testimonial privilege in criminal proceedings occurred through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), section 80, which established that the of an accused person is competent to give for the prosecution in all cases, subject to limited exceptions on compellability. Under subsection (2A), a is compellable only for specified offenses, including those involving willful or ill-treatment of the or a under 16, or to the or such a , sexual offenses against persons under 16, or ; in all other criminal matters, the remains competent but retains a privilege against compellability, allowing voluntary testimony without coercion. This codified and narrowed prior and statutory rules, building on the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, which first rendered spouses competent (though generally not compellable) in criminal trials except for personal violence offenses, thereby reducing absolute barriers to spousal testimony while preserving limited protections for marital relations in non-violent cases. Subsequent amendments extended these provisions to civil partners via the , section 84, aligning the framework with modern partnership laws without altering the core compellability exceptions. Former spouses or civil partners, post-dissolution, are fully competent and compellable as ordinary witnesses, as per PACE section 80(5), reflecting a policy prioritization of evidentiary access over ongoing relational harmony. For marital communications privilege, the Civil Evidence Act 1968, section 16(3), marked a significant by abolishing in civil proceedings the prior statutory protection under the Evidence (Amendment) Act 1853, section 3, which had barred compelling a to disclose confidential communications made during the . This change permits courts to compel such disclosure in civil matters, emphasizing the pursuit of relevant , while the absolute privilege persists in criminal proceedings under principles, protecting communications regardless of compellability status. No further statutory overhauls to communications privilege have occurred, maintaining its dual treatment across proceeding types to balance evidentiary needs with in adversarial contexts.

Australia and Other Commonwealth Nations

In Australia, broad spousal testimonial privileges, which historically protected a from being compelled to testify against their partner in criminal proceedings, have been abolished at and largely through statutory reforms. The in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart HCA 47 ruled by a 4:1 majority that no common law privilege exists against spousal incrimination, rejecting claims that a could refuse to provide that might incriminate their partner. This decision clarified that any prior assumptions of such a privilege derived from English precedents were not entrenched in Australian , emphasizing instead the in obtaining relevant . Under the uniform Evidence Acts, adopted federally (Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)) and in jurisdictions including , Victoria, , the Australian Capital Territory, and , spouses are treated as competent and compellable es in both civil and criminal proceedings, with no general exemption for marital relationships. Section 12 of these Acts provides that a competent is compellable unless specific statutory exceptions apply, such as for certain protected disclosures, but these do not extend to blanket spousal non-compellability. In , legislative amendments effective September 20, 2012, explicitly abolished the rule shielding spouses from prosecution for failing to report a partner's criminal conduct, aligning with the compellability framework. State-specific laws, such as Queensland's Evidence Act 1977 (s 10), similarly render spouses competent and compellable to disclose marital communications in criminal trials.

Abolition of Broad Privileges

The abolition reflects a policy shift prioritizing truth-finding in judicial proceedings over presumptive marital harmony, influenced by empirical concerns that privileges could obstruct justice in cases involving intra-family offenses. Pre-Stoddart reliance on English authorities like R v Pitt (1824) was discarded, as the High Court found insufficient historical grounding in Australian common law for a testimonial bar. Statutory uniformity under the Evidence Acts further entrenches this by omitting spousal exceptions from compellability rules, differing from older state provisions that once offered limited protections, such as Western Australia's Evidence Act 1906 (s 18), which provided a narrow communications privilege but has been curtailed in practice by compellability mandates. Among other Commonwealth nations excluding , approaches vary but trend toward restriction. New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006 mirrors Australia's model, rendering spouses compellable without a general privilege, though statutory extensions of self-incrimination protections occasionally apply to spouses in specific inquisitorial contexts. In contrast, retains partial immunity under s 4(3)(b) of the Canada Evidence Act (RSC 1985, c C-5), where a cannot be compelled to testify against an accused partner in most criminal matters unless the offense involves violence or against the or their , balancing evidentiary needs with relational sanctity.

Remaining Protections and Case Law

Limited protections persist for confidential spousal communications in non-criminal contexts or where public interest weighs against disclosure, preserved under common law where not abrogated by statute, though these yield to compellability in adversarial proceedings against the communicating spouse. The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) does not codify a spousal communications privilege akin to lawyer-client protections (ss 118–119), leaving courts to apply discretionary exclusions sparingly, often only for pre-marital or civil disputes uninvolving criminal incrimination. Post-Stoddart case law, such as NSW Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa NSWCCA 168, reinforces that spouses must testify, with courts rejecting marital status as a basis for exemption even in sensitive family violence scenarios absent statutory carve-outs. In , remaining protections emphasize communications privilege under s 4(3)(a), shielding spousal exchanges during from compelled disclosure indefinitely, even post-divorce, as affirmed in R v Hawkins 3 SCR 1043, though this operates separately from testimonial rules and admits exceptions for public safety. courts, in line with Stoddart's influence, have similarly compelled spousal testimony, as in proceedings under the Evidence Act 2006, where no absolute bar exists, underscoring a regional convergence on evidentiary access over archaic immunities. These developments highlight causal trade-offs: while reducing obstruction in prosecutions (e.g., lower rates in intra-spousal cases post-reform), they raise concerns about relational , though empirical data from Australian jurisdictions shows minimal systemic marital discord attributable to compellability.

Abolition of Broad Privileges

In , the abolished spousal testimonial privilege in the 2011 case Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart, ruling by a 5-2 majority that no general privilege exists to prevent a from being compelled to testify against or incriminate their partner, rejecting historical English precedents as not binding or applicable. This decision overturned prior assumptions of broad spousal immunity derived from outdated marital unity doctrines, emphasizing modern evidentiary needs over presumptive harmony. The ruling applied specifically to compulsory examinations under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), but its reasoning extended to eliminate barriers to spousal compellability across federal and state jurisdictions. Statutory frameworks reinforced this abolition; the uniform Evidence Acts (e.g., Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), adopted in , Victoria, and other states) render spouses competent and compellable witnesses in criminal proceedings, subject only to narrow exceptions for confidential marital communications made during the marriage. In , the Crimes (Amendment) Act 2012 explicitly scrapped residual spousal immunity from prosecution for failing to report a partner's indictable offenses, a reform effective from September 20, 2012, aimed at closing loopholes that shielded accomplices. These changes prioritized truth-finding in investigations over absolute marital protections, with the noting that any lingering privileges must derive from statute, not judicial invention. Among other Commonwealth nations, Canada followed suit with amendments to the Canada Evidence Act effective July 2015, abolishing the spousal incompetence rule that previously allowed a spouse to refuse testimony against an accused partner, while preserving a limited marital communications privilege for post-marriage confidential exchanges. This reform, introduced via Bill C-32, aligned Canadian law with empirical critiques of broad privileges hindering prosecutions in intra-family crimes, though it retained protections for communications to avoid chilling spousal candor entirely. Similar trends appear in New Zealand, where the Evidence Act 2006 (s 70) compels spousal testimony absent specific exemptions, effectively curtailing common law vestiges post-2006 without a blanket testimonial bar. These abolitions reflect a jurisdictional shift toward compellability as the default, driven by case law and legislation prioritizing prosecutorial access to relevant evidence over presumptive spousal loyalty.

Remaining Protections and Case Law

In , the uniform Evidence Acts, enacted federally in 1995 and adopted in jurisdictions including , Victoria, , and the Australian Capital Territory, provide a limited statutory protection under section 18, applicable only in criminal proceedings. A (or de facto partner) of the accused may object to being required to give or to any communication made during the relationship if doing so is likely to cause undue distress or harm to the person or their family relationship; the court must not compel compliance unless the evidence or communication is of substantial importance to the case and any potential harm is outweighed by its probative value. This discretionary mechanism replaced absolute incompetency, balancing evidentiary needs against relational harm without granting an unqualified privilege. In , the Evidence Act 1977 section 10 renders spouses fully competent and compellable, including to disclose marital communications, subject only to exceptions like joint interest in or legislative overrides, reflecting a stronger emphasis on prosecutorial access. The High Court of Australia's decision in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart HCA 47 clarified that no common law spousal testimonial privilege exists to shield a spouse from compelled testimony that might incriminate the other, overturning prior assumptions of such protection and affirming reliance on statutory limits like section 18. This ruling, arising from a commissioner's examination where a wife refused to answer questions potentially implicating her husband in corporate misconduct, emphasized that historical common law variations did not establish a uniform privilege against spousal incrimination, prioritizing investigative compulsion over marital presumptions. No equivalent statutory or common law privilege routinely protects marital communications in civil proceedings or non-uniform states, though courts may invoke public interest immunity or breach of confidence doctrines on a case-specific basis where confidentiality is proven essential to marital trust. In , more enduring protections include non-compellability under section 4(1) of the Canada Evidence Act (RSC 1985, c C-5), whereby a cannot be forced by the prosecution to testify against the accused in trials for indictable offences, though voluntary testimony is permitted to safeguard marital confidentiality and harmony. A distinct marital communications privilege further shields confidential exchanges made during the , jointly held by both spouses and persisting indefinitely to encourage candid spousal ; it applies regardless of ongoing marital status but excludes non-confidential or third-party-involved communications, as affirmed in cases like R v Hawkins 3 SCR 1043, which delimited its scope to truly private marital contexts. New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006 abolished spousal incompetency under section 70, rendering partners fully compellable in criminal and civil matters, but retains a statutory privilege for confidential communications under section 55, protecting disclosures made within domestic relationships (including marriages) for personal or advisory purposes if asserted timely and is established. , such as interpretations in post-2006 proceedings, construes this narrowly, requiring evidence of relational intent and excluding crime-facilitating communications, thereby preserving targeted evidentiary barriers amid broader compellability. Similar residual mechanisms appear in other Commonwealth jurisdictions like , where the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 permits spousal objections to testimony but allows judicial override for , underscoring a trend toward qualified rather than absolute protections.

Civil Law and International Perspectives

In civil law systems of , spousal privilege is typically integrated into broader familial protections rather than existing as standalone marital evidentiary rules akin to those in jurisdictions. Under these frameworks, spouses are often granted a right to refuse (Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht) in criminal proceedings if it would incriminate the witness, their , or close relatives, emphasizing unity and personal autonomy over state compulsion. This right extends beyond spouses to include parents, children, and siblings in many codes, reflecting a codified approach prioritizing relational without the common law's distinction between testimonial and communications privileges. In , Section 52 of the Strafprozessordnung (Code of Criminal Procedure, enacted 1877 and amended as of 2023) permits spouses to decline testifying against each other, provided the refusal is invoked before or during the proceedings; if testimony proceeds, it must be truthful under penalty of . This provision applies in both investigation and phases but does not shield confidential marital communications per se, which may instead fall under general protections or be admissible if voluntarily disclosed. Similar mechanisms operate in , where Article 197 of the Codice di Procedura Penale (1988, reformed 2017) affords spouses and relatives up to the fourth degree the option to abstain from adverse , balancing evidentiary needs with familial interests; courts may compel non-family witnesses but respect these refusals without further into motive. France deviates as an outlier among major civil law nations, where spouses are compellable as witnesses in criminal cases under the Code de Procédure Pénale (Articles 434-1 et seq., as amended 2020), lacking a statutory refusal right for marital testimony except in limited family incrimination scenarios. The affirmed this in Van der Heijden v. Netherlands (2012), observing that only and among states obligate spousal testimony, potentially exposing witnesses to procedural coercion absent broader familial exemptions. This compellability aligns with 's inquisitorial emphasis on truth-seeking, though judges retain discretion to limit intrusive questioning. Internationally, civil law influences extend to Latin America and parts of Asia, where codes modeled on Napoleonic or Germanic systems—such as Brazil's Código de Processo Penal (1941, updated 2021, Article 7)—grant spouses testimonial refusal rights alongside other relatives, often without a perpetual communications bar post-dissolution. In contrast, some jurisdictions like Quebec (under Canada's hybrid system but civil code tradition) retain partial common law privileges via the Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 285–289, 2014), allowing spousal invocation against adverse testimony but permitting communications disclosure after separation. These variations underscore a global trend toward narrowing privileges for public interest cases, such as organized crime, while preserving core familial non-compellability in routine matters.

Exceptions, Limitations, and Contemporary Reforms

Exceptions for Domestic Violence and Child Welfare

In federal courts, the adverse spousal testimonial privilege, modified by the in Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), vests exclusively with the witness-spouse, permitting victims of to testify against their abusers without the defendant-spouse's ability to invoke the privilege. This rule facilitates prosecution by allowing disclosure of observations and events related to intra-marital abuse, as the in addressing violence outweighs absolute marital confidentiality. The marital communications privilege, governed by , similarly accommodates exceptions for statements evidencing ongoing or future harm, though it more stringently protects past confidential exchanges unless they pertain to crimes against the . State laws reinforce these federal principles with statutory exceptions tailored to . For instance, Revised Code § 2945.42 explicitly renders s competent to testify against each other in prosecutions for offenses against the or their minor children, nullifying privilege to prioritize victim and family safety. In , the spousal privilege under Section 504 of the Guide to Evidence does not bar testimony in proceedings, emphasizing the witness-'s discretion post-Trammel while excluding application in civil matters tied to . For child welfare, exceptions broadly apply to protect minors from abuse or neglect, overriding privileges in both criminal and dependency proceedings. Massachusetts law, for example, exempts spousal privilege in child abuse cases, including incest, and parental neglect actions, ensuring testimony can support interventions like removal or prosecution. Ohio similarly waives privilege for crimes against children under 18, allowing parental testimony about observed abuse or related communications to advance child protective measures. These provisions reflect a consensus that child safety imperatives—rooted in mandatory reporting statutes and parens patriae doctrines—supersede marital protections, with federal precedents like Trammel enabling non-abusing parents to disclose evidence of harm without coercion. In practice, such exceptions have increased successful interventions, as evidenced by state data showing higher conviction rates in intra-family abuse cases where spousal testimony is admitted.

Impact of Divorce and Marital Status Changes

In common law jurisdictions such as the , terminates the spousal privilege, which otherwise shields a spouse from compulsory adverse against their partner in criminal cases. This privilege is predicated on preserving the relationship's harmony, a rationale that dissipates once the legally ends, allowing courts to compel former spouses to testify. For example, under federal rules and in states like , a divorced individual may be subpoenaed and required to provide that could incriminate their ex-spouse, without the option to refuse based on prior . Conversely, the confidential marital communications privilege survives in these jurisdictions, protecting disclosures made in confidence during the from compelled revelation in subsequent proceedings. This enduring protection, invocable by either former , upholds the of fostering uninhibited spousal by ensuring such exchanges remain shielded indefinitely, regardless of marital dissolution. In , for instance, courts continue to bar testimony or evidence of private marital discussions post-, emphasizing the privilege's independence from ongoing spousal bonds. Other marital status changes, such as , similarly eliminate testimonial protections prospectively but preserve communications privileges for exchanges occurring under the annulled union, treating them as validly confidential at the time. Legal separation alone typically does not end either privilege, as the marriage persists until formal . Jurisdictional variations persist; some states limit post-divorce communications claims if third parties were present or if communications involved ongoing disputes like . In the United States, judicial scrutiny of spousal privileges has intensified in recent years, with courts narrowing their scope amid evidentiary needs in criminal cases. On April 16, 2025, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the marital privilege under state law permits a spouse to refuse to testify against the other but does not extend to shielding the substance of marital communications from disclosure if obtained independently. In New Mexico, the Supreme Court prospectively abolished the spousal communications privilege on August 30, 2019, in State v. Gutierrez, deeming it a vestige that had "outlived its useful life," but reinstated it on November 6, 2020, following a rehearing while upholding the underlying murder conviction based on other evidence. These decisions reflect broader debates over the privileges' application in domestic violence and intra-family offenses, where testimonial privileges held by the witness spouse predominate federally and in most states post-Trammel v. United States (1980), but communications protections persist with exceptions for child welfare or joint crimes. Legal scholars argue that such privileges hinder prosecutions by allowing perpetrators to invoke marital bonds, prompting calls for further limitations, though empirical data on conviction rates remains mixed and often confounded by underreporting. In Commonwealth jurisdictions, reforms emphasize witness autonomy over spousal incompetency. 's 2015 amendments to the Canada Evidence Act eliminated the rule barring spouses from testifying against each other, vesting the decision in the witness while retaining confidential communications privilege, a change that has spotlighted ongoing tensions in applying the latter to modern marital dynamics. and , having largely abolished broad testimonial disqualifications decades earlier, show no major statutory overhauls since 2020, but continues to carve exceptions for , aligning with a global trend in systems toward conditional privileges that prioritize truth-seeking in adversarial proceedings over absolute marital sanctity. In civil law traditions, such as in and , spousal privileges are typically narrower or absent, with compulsory testimony norms facilitating broader evidentiary access without recent convergence toward expansions.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/spousal_privilege
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marital_privilege
  3. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5263&context=wlr
  4. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/40/
  5. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-522-0935?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  6. https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-the-marital-or-spousal-privilege-its-limits.html
  7. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2647&context=faculty_publications
  8. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6205&context=jclc
  9. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/08/15/marital-privledge-outline.pdf
  10. https://www.egattorneys.com/marital-spousal-privilege-in-california
  11. https://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I0f9fe6bcef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee
  12. https://www.friedfrank.com/uploads/siteFiles/Publications/EvanBarr_NYLJ_9.3.20.pdf
  13. https://www.robertmhelfend.com/federal-defense/spousal-privilege/
  14. https://wp0.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/278/2021/07/Rationalizing-a-Spousal-Confidential-Communications-Privilege-Fit-for-the-Twenty-First-Century.pdf
  15. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8809&context=mlr
  16. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2848&context=wlulr
  17. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_501
  18. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3004&context=dlr
  19. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1747&context=akronlawreview
  20. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4483&context=jclc
  21. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2349737_code1805396.pdf?abstractid=2349737&mirid=1
  22. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/5397/galley/22230/view/
  23. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/16-17/83/data.html
  24. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/371/
  25. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3527&context=clr
  26. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2420&context=vlr
  27. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2339&context=shlr
  28. https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=clr
  29. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=mulr
  30. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2448&context=nmlr
  31. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5136&context=vlr
  32. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=flr
  33. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2648&context=faculty_publications
  34. https://irlaw.umkc.edu/faculty_works/711/
  35. https://www.eiglarshlaw.com/published-works/marital-privilege-when-husband-wife-commit-crimes/
  36. https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/64a19.pdf
  37. https://api.law.wisc.edu/repository-pdf/uwlaw-library-repository-omekav3/original/b7c3e1fd4d690d7a489245a1f0f580c639de4923.pdf
  38. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/07/marriage-divorce-rates.html
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1525354/
  40. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/evolutionary-development-marital-privileges-federal-criminal-trials
  41. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/litigation-journal/popular/marital-privileges/
  42. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/445/40
  43. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/78-5705
  44. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/spousal-privilege.html
  45. https://www.morrisbart.com/blog/spousal-privilege/
  46. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/trammel-v-united-states
  47. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2034&context=lr
  48. https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol47/iss1/5/
  49. https://washingtonlawreview.org/marital-disharmony-examining-the-adverse-spousal-testimonial-privilege-and-its-impact-in-washington-state/
  50. https://criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/legal-defenses/marital-privilege/
  51. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.504.html
  52. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2025/jud/18vDbS4xk36Pj5d_w7W8xES8sbT5nHlAK.pdf
  53. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/80
  54. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/64/section/16
  55. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-522-0935?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
  56. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1898/36/section/1
  57. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/30396
  58. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-522-0935
  59. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I0f9fe6bcef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee
  60. https://www7.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJJl/2012/15.pdf
  61. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/spousal-immunity-rules-scrapped-20120920-2681h.html
  62. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/2025-07-12/act-1977-047
  63. https://www.culshawmiller.com.au/is-there-such-a-thing-as-spousal-privilege-in-australia/
  64. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJJl/2003/23.html
  65. https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/assets/Publications/PreliminaryPapers/NZLC-PP23.pdf
  66. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-5/page-1.html
  67. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/uniform-evidence-law-alrc-report-102/4-competence-and-compellability/compellability/
  68. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5faff8af-ae01-4bb7-b409-c58195f37acb
  69. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Spousal_Immunity
  70. https://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/pp/PP25/PP25-10.html
  71. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2004/1.html
  72. http://www7.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJJl/2012/15.pdf
  73. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/court-overturns-wife27s-right-to-silence/3703892
  74. https://djilp.org/australias-high-court-says-no-to-spousal-privilege/
  75. https://themanitobalawjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/MLJ_42.4/42.4_Cave.pdf
  76. https://www.jutajournals.co.za/revising-spousal-testimonial-privilege-and-marital-communications-privilege-in-south-african-criminal-procedure-is-abolition-or-extension-the-answer-part-2/
  77. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s18.html
  78. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ea200880/s18.html
  79. https://collettreadllp.com/know-your-rights/understanding-spousal-privilege-in-canada/
  80. https://criminal-law-germany.lawyer/does-my-spouse-have-to-tell-the-truth-as-a-witness-in-court/
  81. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-110188
  82. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2945.42
  83. https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-504-spousal-privilege-and-disqualification-parent-child-disqualification
  84. https://www.ohiocriminaldefenselawfirm.com/blog/what-is-the-spousal-privilege-and-how-does-it-apply-to-domestic-violence-cases/
  85. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/does-marital-privilege-continue-after-divorce-52802
  86. https://www.mcjglaw.com/blog/how-marital-privileges-work-in-california/
  87. https://www.meltzerandbell.com/news/understanding-spousal-privilege-florida-what-you-need-to-know/
  88. https://www.greghillassociates.com/when-does-the-marital-privilege-end-during-divorce.html
  89. https://clementlaw.com/spousal-privilege-what-is-it-and-what-happens-to-it-after-divorce/
  90. https://www.nhdefender.com/appeals/2025/04/16/nh-supreme-ct-marital-privilege-protects-only-testimony-not-the-actual-communications/
  91. https://nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/News_release_Supreme_Court_reinstates_spousal_communications_privilege.pdf
  92. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/her-alone-feminist-perspectives-future-spousal-privileges
  93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13657127251345854
  94. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/is-spousal-privilege-relevant-in-the-5148910/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.