Ingram: Companion site for Criminal Evidence, 11th Edition


Case Studies

Chapter 01: History and Development of Rules of Evidence

Overview — Based on: Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 84 (1980).

Mr. and Mrs. Trammel were involved in activities that transgressed federal law. Mr. Trammel had been indicted but his wife had not and was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. The prosecution planned to have Mrs. Trammel testify against Mr. Trammel over his objection that he should be able to prevent his wife from testifying against him. He claimed that he was a holder of the spousal testimonial privilege and could assert it to prevent the adverse testimony of his wife. Mr. Trammel cited an earlier Supreme Court decision, Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (1958), which held that a wife could not be compelled to testify against her husband over his objection. The modern justification for the privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship. While the Court, in Hawkins, reaffirmed the vitality of the common-law privilege in the federal courts, it made clear that its decision was not meant to “foreclose whatever changes in the rule may eventually be dictated by ‘reason and experience.’” 358 U.S., at 79. The trial court permitted Mrs. Trammel to testify against her husband over his objection.

In the Trammel prosecution, the wife was willing to testify against her husband in exchange for leniency from the federal government. Mr. Trammel cited the Hawkins case as precedent against having her testify against him over his objection. The federal prosecutor contended that where a wife was to testify against a husband about non-confidential matters, the old rationale about protecting marriages should have no application in the modern world.

The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the Federal Rules of Evidence acknowledged the authority of the federal courts to continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges in federal courts. The Court emphasized that since its decision in Hawkins, a number of states had abolished the spousal privilege when the spouse wished to testify about non-confidential matters, and the Court noted that the privilege had been subject to much criticism.

Questions

  1. Are the rules of evidence and their interpretations in the federal courts and in state courts generally fixed and not capable of development and adjustment by courts as needs and society changes?

    Correct Answer

    No. The Federal rules of Evidence contemplated that courts would have to interpret the rules of evidence in light of changing conditions, especially in the area of privileges. Rules of evidence cannot be frozen and become immovable because society changes. Judicial interpretations change, and adjustments must be made to assure fairness and logic. Legislatures as well as courts may change rules of evidence. Neither the legislative nor the judicial branches of government have complete control over the changes that might be implemented by the other branch. See Chapter 1, Section 1.7, Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (1958), and Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).

  2. Under the facts of the Trammel case, where Mrs. Trammel was willing to testify against her husband in exchange for leniency, did the trial court act properly in recognizing that times had changed and that a spouse should be permitted to testify against the other spouse about non-confidential matters if the witness spouse wished?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. The old rule that allowed a defendant’s spouse to prevent the other spouse from testifying against the defendant’s spouse no longer made sense. The original rule prohibiting such testimony was designed to ensure marital harmony, but when a spouse’s interests radically diverge from the other’s interests, and one spouse is willing to testify against the other, there is little marital harmony to preserve and the witness spouse should be allowed to testify concerning non-confidential matters. See Chapter 1, Section 1.7.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.