Court Opinion

ID: 9601759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:49:40.004639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:25.109164
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Judge (specially concurring). I agree with the result reached and the conclusion of Chief Judge Wood that this court is without power or authority to disregard Rule 505 of the Rules of Evidence. I do not wish by my concurrence to intimate, however, that I agree with Professor Wig-more’s apparent analysis that recent enactments of “complete legal and political equality and independence of man and woman” is in any way destructive of the marital relationship which the privilege originally was intended to protect. That analysis, it seems to me, suggests that so long as women remained legally and politically inferior, and dependent upon men, the privilege served a valid purpose, i. e., it helped to hold a marriage together. Or it might also mean that wives should not testify against their husbands if they are dependent, subordinate or unequal, because that inferior status should not be disturbed; whereas, if the wife achieves a status of equality, the marital relation is not worth protecting. I think the true basis for considering rejection of the privilege is better stated by the rationale of Hutchins and Slesinger: there is no reason to sacrifice individual justice by pretending the privilege promotes family unity.