Opinion ID: 744574
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Joint Participant in Crime Exception to the Spousal Testimonial Privilege

Text: 89 After her conviction and while serving her sentence, Reyes invoked the spousal testimonial privilege and refused to testify at her husband Ramos's trial. The district court found that there was an exception to the privilege when spouses are jointly involved in a criminal enterprise, and held her in contempt when she continued to refuse to testify. The weeks Reyes spent in prison during the Ramos trial, then, were charged to her contempt citation and did not amount to time served on her earlier sentence. She contends that the district court erred in finding the exception, and that she should be granted time-served status for those weeks she spent in prison during the second trial. 6 90 Federal common law recognizes two different marital privileges. United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir.1990). 7 One bars testimony concerning statements privately communicated between spouses and may be invoked by the testifying or nontestifying spouse (marital communications privilege). Id. The second permits a person to refuse to testify against her spouse about anything (testimonial privilege). Id.; Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53, 100 S.Ct. 906, 913, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980) (holding that the privilege lies with the testifying spouse). Reyes claimed the second of these privileges when she refused to testify at her husband Julio Ramos's trial. 91 A district court's construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a question of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir.1995). 92 This circuit has held that the marital communications privilege does not apply to communications having to do with present or future crimes in which both spouses are participants. Marashi, 913 F.2d at 730. The Marashi court reasoned that the [u]se of the privilege in criminal proceedings requires a particularly narrow construction because of society's strong interest in the administration of justice. Id. The court quoted the Second Circuit as follows: 93 The [circuits] which recognize that 'partnership in crime' exception to the confidential communication privilege believe that greater public good will result from permitting the spouse of an accused to testify willingly concerning their joint criminal activities than would have come from permitting the accused to erect a roadblock against the search for truth. 94 Id. (quoting United States v. Estes, 793 F.2d 465, 466 (2d Cir.1986)). 95 While the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the question of whether there is a joint participant exception to the testimonial privilege that can force an unwilling spouse to testify against her husband, the Supreme Court has stated that in such a case the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying. Trammel, 445 U.S. at 53, 100 S.Ct. at 913. Thus, we hold that there is no joint participant exception to the testimonial privilege and Reyes was improperly compelled to choose between testifying against her husband and facing contempt charges. On remand, the district court should credit Reyes's sentence with the time she served while being held in contempt.