Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Kat Richardson <null.space@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:37:25 -0800
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Kat Richardson wrote:
>
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>>Kat Richardson wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>Francis (or John P, if you know): I seem to recall that a spouse cannot
>>>>be compelled to testify against their spouse (exes, I believe, don't
>>>>count). Is that true or is it a fiction?
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Hi Kat,
>>>
>>>I purposely avoided that issue in my response. But, here goes. The old
>>>common law rule was that a spouse was incompetent to testify in a trial
>>>of the other spouse. That meant that she or he could not testify even
>>>on behalf of the accused spouse. Somewhere in the 19th century, if my
>>>recollection serves, that rule was deemed too draconian. A spouse could
>>>not under that rule even say "He was home with me all night."
>>>
>>>So, the rule changed and variants flew off in all directions. In some
>>>jurisdictions, a spouse cannot testify against the accused spouse [still
>>>a form of incompetency] but can testify for him or her. In other
>>>jurisdictions, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the
>>>accused spouse, but can choose to testify against the accused spouse.
>>>In still other jurisdictions, the rule is that a spouse can be compelled
>>>to testify but not as to communications between the spouses. Under this
>>>rule, a spouse could be forced to say, "He came home at midnight and his
>>>white shirt was covered with blood and then he burned it," but could
>>>not be compelled to say, "I asked him what happened and he said he
>>>killed my boyfriend." So the variations on the rule have to be
>>>examined from state to state.
>>>
>>>Exes do not count as there is nothing in the relationship to preserve -
>>>supposedly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Francis A. Miniter
>>
>>
>> Ah-hah! I'm sorry to have put you on the spot, Francis. But thank you
>> very
>> much for the explanation of the spousal testimony issue. I hadn't
>> realized
>> it was so complicated. It's one of those conventions in Golden Age
>> mysteries--Witness for the Prosecution being a famous instance--which I
>> wasn't sure really existed anymore, if it ever had.
>
>
> Definitely complicated. The writer may have to move the events to another
> jurisdiction to get the right level of spousal immunity. So much research!
>
>
> Francis A. Miniter
Heheh. I'm nothing if not lazy, so I'll probably have to skip
fictionalizing this one.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker--coming from Roc in October, 2006
http://www.katrichardson.com/
.
- References:
- Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: artyw2@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Francis A. Miniter
- Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Kat Richardson
- Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Francis A. Miniter
- Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Kat Richardson
- Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- From: Francis A. Miniter
- Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- Prev by Date: Re: Resident Nerds
- Next by Date: Death of Coretta Scott King
- Previous by thread: Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- Next by thread: Re: Local crime story (And stories like this?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|