Legal Document

445 U.S. 40 100 Supreme Court Reporter 906 63 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 186 Otis TRAMMEL, Jr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 78-5705. Argued Oct. 29, 30, 1979. Decided Feb. 27, 1980. Syllabus Prior to his trial with others on federal drug charges, petitioner advised the District that Government intended call wife (who had been named in indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator) adverse witness and asserted a privilege prevent her from testifying. The ruled confidential communications between were privileged therefore inadmissible, but was permitted testify any act she observed before or during marriage communication made presence of third person. Primarily basis wife's testimony, convicted, Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner's contention admission over objection, contravened decision Hawkins versus States, 358 74, 79 136, 3 125, barring testimony one spouse against other unless both consent. Held : modifies rule so witness-spouse alone has refuse adversely; may be neither compelled nor foreclosed Here, chose him; did after grant immunity assurances lenient treatment does not render involuntary, thus claim properly rejected. Pp. 43-53. (a) modern justification for spousal is its perceived role fostering harmony sanctity relationship. While this Court, Hawkins, supra, reaffirmed vitality common-law courts, it clear meant "foreclose whatever changes eventually dictated by 'reason experience.' " U.S., at 79, S.Ct., 139. 43-46. (b) Rule 501 Federal Rules Evidence acknowledges courts' authority continue evolutionary development testimonial privileges criminal trials "governed principles common law they interpreted . light reason experience." Pacific KF135 P2 47. (c) Since 1958, when decided, trend state toward divesting accused bar testimony. 48-50. (d) Information privately disclosed husband confidence marital relationship under independent protecting communications, Blau 340 332, 71 301, 95 L.Ed. 306; privilege, which sweeps more broadly than limited invoked also exclude evidence acts persons. ancient foundations sweeping privilege—whereby woman regarded chattel denied separate legal identity—have long since disappeared, contemporary affording such unpersuasive. When willing proceeding—whatever motivation there probably little way preserve. Consideration history shows "reason experience" no longer justify found acceptable Hawkins. 50-53. 583 Reporter, 2nd 1166, affirmed. Sol. Gen. Wade Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 McCree, Washington, D. C., respondent. Judge Terry Wiggins, Denver, Colo., petitioner. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari consider whether invoke voluntary wife. 440 934, 99 1277, 59 492 (1979). This calls re-examination 125 (1958). 2 * On March 10, 1976, Trammel indicted two others, Edwin Lee Roberts Joseph Freeman, importing heroin into Thailand Philippine Islands conspiracy import violation 21 Code KF62 §§ 952(a), 962(a), 963. six co-conspirators, including Elizabeth Ann Trammel. According indictment, flew Philippines California August 1975, carrying them quantity heroin. Freeman assisted distribution. then traveled where purchased another supply drug. November 3, four ounces person, boarded plane States. During routine customs search Hawaii, searched, discovered, arrested. After discussions Drug Enforcement Administration agents, agreed cooperate Government. 4 moved sever case Freeman. He court testifying him. At hearing motion, Mrs. called use immunity. She testified married May 1975 remained married.1 explained cooperation based would given treatment.2 described, considerable detail, distribution conspiracy. 5 could support Government's "made person"; however, held inadmissible. motion denied. 6 trial, within limits court's pretrial ruling; concedes, constituted virtually entire guilty substantive charges sentenced indeterminate term years pursuant Youth Corrections Act, 18 § 5010(b).3 7 In only error wife, Court's teaching reversible error. rejected contention. It concluded prohibit "the who appears co-conspirator return testimony." 1168 (CA10 1978). II 8 claimed roots. Writing 1628, Lord Coke "it hath beene resolved Justices cannot produced either husband." E. Coke, A Commentarie upon Littleton 6b (1628). See, generally, Wigmore, 2227 (McNaughton rev. 1961). disqualification sprang canons medieval jurisprudence: first, own behalf because interest proceeding; second, concept one, recognized existence, one. From those now long-abandoned doctrines, followed what inadmissible lips defendant-husband 9 Despite origins, intact most jurisdictions well 19th century. See id., 2333. applied Stein Bowman, 13 Pet. 209, 220-223, 10 129 (1839), Graves 150 118, 14 40, 37 1021 (1893), again Jin Fuey Moy 254 189, 195, 41 98, 101, 65 214 (1920), deemed established proposition "hardly requir[e] mention." Indeed, until 1933, Funk 290 371, 54 212, 78 369, abolished permit defendant defendant's behalf. Funk, left undisturbed giving Id., 373, 212. evolved rather absolute disqualification. Maguire, Evidence, Common Sense Law 78-92 (1947). Notwithstanding benign purpose, sharply criticized.4 Professor Wigmore termed merest anachronism theory indefensible obstruction truth practice." 2228, 221. Committee Improvements American Bar Association abolition. 594-595 (1938). place, suggested private modeled priest penitent, attorney client, physician patient. 2332 et seq.5 11 These criticisms influenced Institute, which, 1942 Model advocated confidences, expressly vesting right all spouse. 215 (1942). 1953 Uniform drafted National Conference Commissioners State Laws, similar course; "abolishe[d] rule, still existing some states, largely sentimental relic, requiring action." 23(2) comments. Several legislatures enacted similarly patterned provisions law.6 12 (1958), considered continued courts. There With questioning concurring opinion, inadmissible; took note critical comments engendered, 76, n. 4, 137, abandon it. Also suggestion modify witness-spouse, freedom control. viewed proposed modification antithetical widespread belief, evidenced rules effect majority England, "that should force encourage might alienate further inflame domestic differences." then, it, continuing "a bars consent." 78, 138. Accord, Wyatt 362 525, 528, 80 901, 903, 931 (1960).7 However, doing, III Atlantic acknowledge courts Fed.Rule Evid. 501. Cf. Wolfle 291 7, 12, 279, 617 (1934). general mandate substituted Congress set Judicial Advisory approved That proposal defined nine specific privileges, husband-wife have codified theHawkins eliminated communications. 505. enacting 501, manifested affirmative intention freeze privilege. Its purpose "provide flexibility develop case-by-case basis," 120 Cong.Rec. 40891 (1974) (statement Rep. Hungate), leave door open change. S.Rep.No.93-1277, Page (1974); H.R.Rep.No.93-650, (1973),8 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, 7051. 15 Although confirms reconsider validity suggests ought casually cast aside. affecting marriage, home, family relationships—already subject much erosion our day—also counsels caution. same time, we escape reality occasion adheres doctrinal concepts reasons gave birth disappeared experience suggest need "decline[d] enforce rule[s] conditions exist." 382, 215. For, Black admonished setting, "[w]hen precedent argument can court-fashioned time rule's creator destroy it." Francis Southern Co., 333 445, 471, 68 611, 623, 92 798 (1948) (dissenting opinion). B 16 eroded further. Thirty-one jurisdictions, Alaska allowed 81, 140 (STEWART, J., concurring). number declined 24.9 Laws revised favor 504. Arkansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma—each 1958 testimony.10 special relevance laws relations are concerns traditionally reserved states. Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 404, 553, 559, 42 532 (1975). Scholarly criticism unabated.11 Contract 17 Testimonial exclusionary contravene fundamental principle 'the public every man's evidence.' Bryan, 339 323, 331, 70 724, 730, 94 884 (1950). As such, must strictly construed accepted "only very extent permitting refusal excluding relevant good transcending normally predominant utilizing rational means ascertaining truth." Elkins 364 206, 234, 1437, 1454, 1669 (1960) (Frankfurter, dissenting). Nixon, 418 683, 709-710, 3090, 3108-3109, 1039 (1974). Here decide promotes sufficiently important interests outweigh probative administration justice. essential remember needed protect information relationship—once described best solace human existence." Pet., 223. Those confidences 306 (1951); see 5, supra. invoked, 19 No broadly. patient limit protection rooted imperative trust. priest-penitent recognizes disclose spiritual counselor, total confidence, believed flawed thoughts receive priestly consolation guidance return. lawyer-client rests advocate counselor know relates client's seeking representation if professional mission carried out. Similarly, articulate order identify treat disease; barriers full disclosure impair diagnosis treatment. 20 stands marked contrast these three privileges. communications; permits Jeremy Bentham century half ago, goes far beyond making "every house castle," person convert den thieves." Rationale (1827). "secures, man, safe unquestionable ready accomplice imaginable crime." 338. disappeared. Nowhere world—indeed society—is demeaned denial identity dignity associated recognition whole being. Chip chip, archaic notions aside "[n]o female destined solely home rearing family, male marketplace world ideas." Stanton Stanton, 421 14-15, 1373, 1377-1378, 43 688 22 motivation—their almost certainly disrepair; circumstances, seems likely frustrate justice foster peace.12 believe actually undermine For example, unlikely offer knows If dissuaded offer, untoward expense other. hardly conducive preservation relation place jeopardy virtue husband's control IV 23 Our consideration satisfy us Accordingly, conclude modified modification—vesting witness-spouse—furthers without unduly burdening legitimate enforcement needs. 24 involuntary. Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 98 663, 604 (1978). correct judgment 25 Affirmed. 26 STEWART, judgment. 27 agreeing say, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join implies worked vast change decided 1958. upheld all-but-unanimous Black. Today obliterates purported perception wrought. 28 fact matter simply accepts arguments first thought valid then,1 think now. 29 says "[t]he disappeared." Ante, 52. But 1958; their disappearance occur few elapsed To paraphrase Jackson once said context, today's will greater students psychology law.2 response question divorce contemplated, "I go my he his." App. 27. represents prosecuted convicted. years' imprisonment. received sentence Act. Brosman, Edward Livingston Spousal Testimony Louisiana, Tulane L.Rev. 243 (1937); Hutchins Slesinger, Some Observations Evidence: Family Relations, Minn.L.Rev. 675 (1929); Note, Calif.L.Rev. 472 (1936); 35 Mich.L.Rev. 329 So.Cal.L.Rev. 693 (1936). just (1934), (1951). case, adopt view issue instant case; accordingly, holding today disturb Blau. Competency One Spouse Testify Against Other Criminal Cases Where Does Not Relate Confidential Communications: Modern Trend, 38 Va.L.Rev. 359 (1952). exception cases commits crime 526, 902. exception, placed ground necessity, longstanding law. Audley's Case, 123 Eng.Rep. 1140 (1631); 2239. expanded include crimes spouse's property, Herman 220 219, 226 (CA4 1955), recent children spouse, Allery, 526 1362 (CA8 1975). Similar exceptions 2338. Petitioner's reliance 2076 power ill-founded. provision statutory rulemaking providing "creating, abolishing, modifying shall Congress." principally insure apply diversity jurisdiction authorized otherwise. makes developing "in experience"; indeed encouraged development. Eight provide incompetent proceeding: Haw.Rev.Stat. 621-18 (1976); Iowa 622.7 (1979); Miss.Code Ann. 13-1-5 (Supp.1979); N.C.Gen.Stat. 8-57 (Supp.1977); Ohio Rev.Code 2945.42 Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 42, 5913, 5915 (Purdon Supp.1979); Tex.Crim.Proc.Code Article 38.11 (Vernon 1979); Wyo.Stat. 1-12-104 (1977). Sixteen vest spouses defendant-spouse alone: Crim.Proc.Rule 26(b)(2); Colo.Rev.Stat. 13-90-107 (1973); Idaho 9-203 Mich.Comp.Laws 600.2162 (Mich.Stat.Ann. 27A.2162) (1968); Minn.Stat. 595.02 (1978); Mo.Rev.Stat. 546.260 Mont.Code 46-16-212 Neb.Rev.Stat. 27-505 (1975); Nev.Rev.Stat. 49.295 (1977); N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:84A-17 (West 1976); N.M.Stat.Ann. 20-4-505 Ore.Rev.Stat. 44.040 Utah 78-24-8 Va.Code 19.2-271.2 Wash.Rev.Code 5.60.060 W.Va.Code 57-3-3 (1966). Nine entitle assert testimony: Ala.Code 12-21-227 Cal.Evid.Code 970-973 1966 Conn.Gen.Stat. 54-84 Ga.Code 38-1604 Ky.Rev.Stat. 421.210 (Supp.1978); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:461 1967); Md.Cts. Jud.Proc.Code 9-101, 9-106 Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 233, R.I.Gen.Laws 12-17-10 (1970). remaining cases: Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 12-2231 Ark.Stat.Ann. 28-101, 504 Del.Code 11, 3502 Fla.Stat. 90.501, 90.504 Ill.Rev.Stat., 38, 155-1 Ind.Code 34-1-14-4, 34-1-14-5 Kan.Stat.Ann. 60-407, 60-428 Maine 504; N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 516:27 N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 60.10 (McKinney 1971); N.Y.Civ.Proc.Law 4502, 4512 1963); N.D.Rules Okla.Stat., 2103, 2501, 2504 S.C.Code 19-11-30 S.D.Comp.Laws 19-13-1, 19-13-12 19-13-15 Tenn.Code 40-2404 Vt.Stat.Ann., 1605 Wis.Stat. 905.01, 905.05 1901, Columbia "competent compellable each other," except provision, vests remains effect. 31 Statutes-at-Large 1358, 1068, 1069, recodified D.C.Code 14-306 (1973). 1965, vested accepting study commission recommendation "latter [was] former determine probable relationship." Supp.1979) Revision Commission, Recommendation Study relating Marital "For Against" Privilege F-5 (1956). Tentative Privileges Recommendation—Rule 27.5, Pages 243-244 (1964). Support diminished England. 1972, group "if [the wife] give showing excessive concern say do so." Committee, Eleventh Report, (General) 93. Reutlinger, Policy, Privacy, Prerogatives: Critical Examination Proposed They Affect Privilege, 61 1353, 1384-1385 Orfield, Husband-Wife Procedure, St.L.J. 144 (1963); Rothstein, Re-evaluation Adverse Light Purpose, international Comp.L.Q. 1189 1977 Ariz.St.L.J. 411; Comment, St. Louis L.J. 107 (1972); Wayne 1287, 1334-1337 (1969); 52 J.Crim.L. 74 (1961); 56 Nw.U.L.Rev. 208 32 Temp.L.Q. 351 (1959); 33 (1959). argued abolishing come pitting That, too, misses mark. Neither prevents enlisting concerning aid other's apprehension. courtroom prohibited. "The here asked re-examine 'sentimental relic.' born rejected: What began yielded gradually policy admitting evidence, become "Any impedes discovery doing product conceptualism ago discarded, universally criticized scholars, qualified abandoned many careful scrutiny. Surely experience' require indulge mere assumptions, perhaps naive importance tranquillity." 81-82, 140, (concurring opinion) (citations footnotes omitted). Zorach Clauson, 343 306, 325, 72 679, 689, 96 954

Classification Label: 8