Document: 362 U.S. 525 80 S.Ct. 901 4 L.Ed.2d 931 James Ivey WYATT, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 119. Argued Jan. 13, 1960. Decided May 16, Robert R. Rissman and Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Mr. Roger G. Connor, Juneau, Alaska, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was tried convicted knowingly transporting a woman in interstate commerce purpose prostitution, violation White Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421, U.S.C.A. 2421. At trial, woman, who had since date offense married petitioner, ordered, over her objection that to testify on behalf prosecution.1 The Court Appeals, appeal from judgment conviction, affirmed ruling District 263 F.2d 304. As case presented significant issues concerning scope nature privilege against adverse spousal testimony, treated last Term Hawkins v. United States, 358 74, 79 136, 3 125, we granted certiorari. 360 908, 1299, 1259. We affirm judgment. 2 First. Our decision established, federal courts, continued validity common-law rule evidence ordinarily permitting party exclude testimony his or spouse. However, as expressly acknowledged, common law has long recognized an exception certain kinds offenses committed by Id., at page 75, 137, citing Stein Bowman, 13 Pet. 209, 221, 10 L.Ed. 129. Exploration precise breadth this exception, matter some uncertainty, see 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), 2239, can await where it is necessary. For present purposes enough note every Appeals which considered specific question now holds not rule, applies Mann Act prosecution, defendant's wife victim offense.2 Such unanimity with respect lends weighty credentials view. While never before decided question, unhesitatingly approve followed five different Circuits. need embark upon extended consideration asserted bases (see Hawkins, supra, pages 77—78, 138—139; op. cit., 2228(3)) appraisal applicability each here, id., cannot be seriously argued one 'shameless wifehood,' p. 257, should permitted prevent testifying crime invoking interest founded marital relation desire protect it. Petitioner's attempt testifying, own, properly rejected. Second. witness-wife, however, did willingly, but objected being questioned gave only denying claimed testify. therefore consider correctness ruling.3 5 States argues that, once having held, do, such petitioner's could prevented voluntarily, establishes she may compelled For, said, specifically rejected any distinction between voluntary testimony. 77, 138. This argument fails take account setting our Hawkins. To say witness-spouse voluntarily simply means testimony;4 when, other hand, spouse will, witness accorded privilege. In Government took position witness, party, so while decline testify, giving if elected claim which, belonged alone. Brief 20, O.T.1958, pp. 22 43. declining hold no privilege, manifestly thereby repudiate witness. 6 often arisen, apparently been generally assumed resided well party. referred 'a bars unless both consent,' 78, (Emphasis supplied.) See 223 (wife 'by force authority state facts evidence'); Mitchell, 137 1008 ('the better view either chooses it'); 2241; McCormick, Evidence, 66, n. 3. its brief, Government, calling abolition party's urged commonlaw development explained, policies fully vindicated, recognition Brief, 22—25, 33, 42—43; concurring opinion, 82, 139, 141. least are reason applicable Wigmore puts it, 264: '(W)hile defendant-husband entitled protected condemnation through wife's witness-wife also becoming instrument condemnation,—the sentiment equal degree yet quality.' light these considerations, accept 7 Third. Neither whenever unavailable ipso facto lost well. It case, category cases, whether, led refusal recognize held compellable. Certainly, would justified laying down general privileges stand fall together. turn instead particular situation bar. Where man prostituted own wife, he relation, have today disabling him excluding him. suggested, application when remain silent. rests necessity preventing defendant sealing lips unlawful act, 1008—1009; op chosen 'become instrument' husband's downfall, reasons according first place applicable. 9 must congressional policy embodied Act. 'A primary women were weak men bad.' Denning Cir., 247 F. 463, 465. response shocking revelations subjugation too resist Congress acted. H.R.Rep. 47, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 10—11. legislative history discloses, reflects supposition whom sought deal independent will their embodies, effect, they themselves. Compare 2422, 2422 (consent immaterial prosecution under section). us re-examine basis supposition. Applying underlying allowable choice 'voluntarily' decide husband induce 'will,' enter life prostitution benefit—and can—by same token can, easily, persuade already fallen influence make matters ad hoc inquiries into actual mind women, encumbering trials collateral issue greatest subtlety, hardly acceptable solution. 11 Fourth. What said likewise governs disposition reliance fact marriage after commission offense. Again, here intimate similarly circumstanced situations. assumption lack here. petitioner power could, assumed, secured promise so, induced go ceremony him, perhaps 'in contemplation evading justice very invoked.' Williams, D.C., 55 F.Supp. 375, 380. 12 correctly upheld Appeals.5 Affirmed. 14 Chief WARREN, BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 15 Last criminal objection. 125. finds bar approves overriding objection, wife's. cases prosecuted relevant difference herself person allegedly transported prostitution. Morally speaking, profanation relationship adds element utmost depravity ugly business promoting Legally does warrant radical departure sanctions. 16 Court's analysis problem sound many ways unsoundness conclusion especially disappointing—and somewhat curious. Briefly, appears follows: accepts principle belongs charged offense, Moreover, rejects notion latter barred asserting because, given improper former invoke 'certain * spouse,' believes instant involves type crime. recognizes, moreover, behind effectuated ordinary injured option without compelling testify.1 concludes 'should assumed' sway extent entrusted choice. Consequently, trial court—and prosecutor—must forcing 17 fatal defect lies evaluation mental support record enactment. rely prove somehow mesmerized stand. evidence, point fact, strongly suggests played managerial role sordid enterprise formed prosecution.2 Apparently jury's view, jurors asked judge whether 'make or—if anything do instigation planning .' judge, course, instructed then immaterial, jury nevertheless unanimously recommended leniency. Thus strange vehicle use announcing 'lack will' theory. Presumably regarded proves rule. 19 sole ground assigned necessary 'legislative (Mann) Act,' 'reflects (Congress) themselves.' hypothesis, cites companion provision consent relieve responsibility.3 equation involved fashioning statute restriction husband-wife is, I submit, entirely facile, overlooks critically problems. assessing pertinence woman's culprit's responsibility, chose society eradicating importation transportation prostitutes clever unscrupulous profiteers, engagement other. manifest imbalance competing considerations difficulty definition proof might conceivably relevant, surprising passed made 2422. testimonial presents questions quite order, there traditionally supporting Hawkins—the preservation conjugal relationship. And refuses strong still protected. 20 Not prior action provide decision, represents incursion what essentially area. true, courts interpret principles experience.' Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 26, authority, exercised discriminating awareness within special competence judiciary those primarily concern legislature. more Congress' business, ours, comparative values quest judicial process safeguarding relationship, give—or deny expression termed natural repugnance fair-minded other's condemnation, culprit humiliation condemned words life-partner.' 227. That uniquely demonstrated England country, changes wrought legislatures.4 worth noting essentials survived remarkable sturdiness course bodies.5 21 Of past attitude pointed out 1887 prosecutions crimes bigamy, polygamy, cohabitation, stipulated neither 24 Stat. 635. believed sufficient protection spouse-witness, State securing convictions outweighed right spouse-witness will. Even 1917 legislation spouses competent aliens immoral purposes. 39 878—879, re-enacted 66 230, 1328, 1328. acted kindred remained silent far 2421 itself concerned. negative implication require elaboration.6 noted even 1328 'admissible competent,' compellable.7 my judgment, strays appropriate reserve marked am unwilling join based delicate, determination. dissent. Although ambiguous time marriage, shall did, sequence events stated text. Further, clearly establish assume had. 304, 308. assumption. 1006; Levine 163 992; Shores 174 838, A.L.R.2d 635, overruling Johnson 221 250; Pappas 241 665; Hayes 168 996. standing seek reversal because erroneous wife. Since wrongly compelled, per se admissible, Funk 290 371, 54 212, 78 369, suffered injury complain. 2196(2)(a); 73; Uniform Rules Rule 40; Am.L.Inst. Model Code 234; Note, 30 Col.L.Rev. 686, 693—694. See, e.g., Turner State, 60 Miss. 351, 353. briefed argued, thought appropriate, merits, standing, abolished, disqualification incompetence thus establishing admissibility leaving only. further assertion, apart insufficient corroboration admission transportation, Perhaps merely assuming true arguendo. basic abusing impunity, amply warranted. Lord Audley's Trial, How.St.Tr. 401, 402, 414 (1631); Bentley Cooke, Doug. 422, 424 (1784) ('(T)hat necessity, had, where, instance, otherwise exposed remedy personal injury.' Mansfield, L.C.J.); (3rd 2239; Comment, Ark.L.Rev. & Bar Assn.J. 426, 427; 38 Va.L.Rev. 359, 361. All fulfill redress. If utilize means, greater justification than normal situation. concededly contrary, reasoned. disagree, unnecessary discuss detail. most important regarding providing hotel bellboy, related various conversations clerk testified little distinguish relating husband. Section makes (a) transport foreign purpose, intent inducing engage practice, (b) secure above intent. travel carriers Every governing matter. discussion statutes, Vernier, American Family Laws, 585—586; 488, 2245; 43 Marq.L.Rev. 131, 132; 33 Tulane L.Rev. 884; 359. differences among statutes divergent views relative importance factors involved. interesting connection small minority pandering white slavery female involved, compellable competent. Me.Rev.Stat.1954, c. 134, 22; Ore.Comp.Laws Ann.1940, 23—921; Utah Ann.1943, 103—51—14; Va.Code 1950, 18—97; W.Va.Code Ann.1955, §§ 6062, 6063. 366. Nor comprehensive British give comfort description Spouses Criminal Cases, 99 Sol.J. 551. Nokes, A Century Law (Graveson Crane 146—149; Scots L.T. (1956), 145. Leach Rex, (1912) A.C. 305, Rex Lapworth, (1931) K.B. 117. experience Alabama Supreme instructive. court, 'exception necessity' 94 Ala. 53, So. 427. Legislature, abolished statute. Ala.Code, 1940, Tit. 15, 311. sources cited 4, supra. sure, attacked commentators, Wigmore's treatise. lengthy criticism best summarized words: 'This longer good retention. age rationalized, depolarized, de-chivalrized spirit Femininity willing enact complete legal political equality independence merest anachronism, theory, indefensible obstruction truth, practice.' 232. arguable much ipse dixit statements favor criticizes ground. 226—228. event, evident value judgments legislature adapted reject judiciary. contrasting Wigmore's, Bassett 496, 505—506, 165, 167, 34 762, narrowly construed privilege: 'We doubt change ancient well-supported rule; intention lightly imputed. indifferent sacred things, lower holy relations material plane simple contract. So, ages adjudged, language declaring clear limit.' legislatures, distinguishes trial. out, dispualification interest, '(t)he rules disqualified witnesses persons since, main, country *.' 380, 215. contrast Funk, able 'the current opinion,' 381, 215, striking. connection, emphasized decisions stand, indicates, proposition falls But 841, Eighth Circuit dicta case—a broader adopted seems plain meaning statutory language, though similar received broad narrow constructions. McCormick 135 Tenn. 218, 186 S.W. 95, L.R.A.1916F. 382, Richardson 103 Md. 112, 117, 63 A. 317, 319—320. English (1912), 311 (not compellable) ('The deep seated think overturned clear, definite, positive enactment, *' Atkinson). 2245(a): 362—363.

Category: 0