Court Opinion

ID: 9421982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:00:47.421794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:33.537607
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas join,
dissenting.
Last Term this Court held that a wife could not voluntarily testify against her husband in a criminal prosecution over his objection. Hawkins v. United States, 358 U. S. 74. The Court finds the case at bar so different from Hawkins that it approves overriding not only the husband’s objection, but also the wife’s. In both cases the husband was prosecuted for violation of the Mann Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2421. The only relevant difference is that here the wife herself was the person allegedly transported by the husband for purposes of prostitution. Morally speaking, this profanation of the marriage relationship adds an element of the utmost depravity to the ugly business of promoting prostitution. Legally speaking, however, this does not warrant the *532radical departure from the Hawkins rule which the Court now sanctions.
The Court’s analysis of the problem here presented is sound in so many ways that the unsoundness of its conclusion is especially disappointing — and somewhat curious. Briefly, that analysis appears to be as follows: The Court accepts the principle that the spousal privilege belongs both to the person charged with the offense, as we held in Hawkins, and also to the witness. Moreover, the Court rejects the notion that the latter may be barred from asserting the privilege simply because, in a given case, it may be improper for the former to invoke it. The defendant may not claim the privilege where he is charged with “certain kinds of offenses committed . . . against his spouse,” and the Court believes that the instant case involves this type of crime. It apparently recognizes, moreover, that the policy behind this exception may be effectuated in the ordinary situation by giving the injured party the option to testify, without compelling her to testify.1 In this case, however, it con-*533eludes that the wife “should be assumed” to be under the sway of the husband to such an extent that she cannot be entrusted with that choice. Consequently, the trial court — and the prosecutor — must be given the power to protect her against herself by forcing her to testify.
The fatal defect in this conclusion lies in the Court’s evaluation of the mental state of the wife, an evaluation which finds no support in the record and which cannot properly be justified by any legislative enactment.
The Court does not and could not rely upon the record to prove that petitioner’s wife was somehow mesmerized by him when she was on the witness stand. The evidence, in point of fact, strongly suggests that the wife played a managerial role in the sordid enterprise which formed the basis for the prosecution.2 Apparently this was the jury’s view, since the jurors asked the judge whether it would “make any difference or — if the woman had anything to do with the instigation or planning . . . .” The judge, of course, instructed them that this would be immaterial, but the jury nevertheless unanimously recommended leniency. Thus this case is a strange vehicle for the Court to use in announcing its “lack of independent will” theory. Presumably it is to be regarded as the exception which proves the rule.
The sole ground assigned by the Court for its decision is that it is a necessary application of the “legislative judgment underlying the [Mann] Act,” which “reflects the supposition that the women with whom [Congress] sought to deal often had no independent will of their own, and embodies, in effect, the view that they must be pro*534tected against themselves.” In support of this hypothesis, the Court cites legislative history and the fact that, under 18 U. S. C. § 2422, a companion provision to § 2421, the consent of the woman does not relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility.3 This equation of the legislative judgment involved in fashioning a criminal statute with the judgment involved in the Court’s restriction of the husband-wife privilege is, I submit, entirely too facile, for it overlooks the critically different nature of these problems. In assessing the pertinence of the woman’s consent to the culprit’s criminal responsibility, Congress chose between the interest of society in eradicating the importation and interstate transportation of prostitutes and the interest of women to be protected from clever and unscrupulous profiteers, on the one hand, and the voluntary engagement of women in prostitution on the other. In view of the manifest imbalance of these competing considerations and the difficulty of definition and proof of the type of consent which might conceivably be relevant, it is hardly surprising that Congress passed the Mann Act and made consent entirely immaterial under § 2422. The testimonial privilege, however, presents questions of quite a different order, since there is a significant interest traditionally regarded as supporting the privilege, as we recognized in Hawkins — the preservation of the conjugal relationship. And where the wife refuses to testify, there is strong evidence that there is still a marital relationship to be protected.
*535Not only does prior congressional action provide no support for the Court’s decision, but without such support that decision represents an incursion into what is essentially a legislative area. It is true, of course, that federal courts have the authority to interpret the common-law principles of evidence “in the light of reason and experience.” Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., 26. This authority, however, must be exercised with a discriminating awareness of the distinction between matters which fall within the special competence of the judiciary and those which are primarily the concern of the legislature. It is more properly Congress’ business, not ours, to place comparative values upon the quest for facts in the judicial process as against the safeguarding of the marriage relationship, and to give — or deny — expression to what has been termed “a natural repugnance in every fair-minded person to compelling a wife or husband to be the means of the other’s condemnation, and to compelling the culprit to the humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life-partner.” 8 Wigmore, Evidence, 227. That this decision is uniquely legislative and not judicial is demonstrated by the fact that, both in England and in this country, changes in the common-law privilege have been wrought primarily by legislatures.4 And perhaps *536it is worth noting that the essentials of the privilege have survived with remarkable sturdiness through the course of continued consideration by legislative bodies.5
Of particular interest is the past action and attitude of Congress with respect to the privilege. As the Court *537pointed out in Hawkins, in 1887 Congress passed a statute which permitted either spouse to testify in prosecutions of the other for the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, but stipulated that neither should be compelled to testify. 24 Stat. 635. Apparently Congress believed that this provision gave sufficient protection to the spouse-witness, and that the interest of the State in securing convictions was outweighed by the considerations supporting the right of the spouse-witness not to testify against her will. Even more in point is the 1917 legislation by which Congress made spouses competent to testify against each other in prosecutions for the importation of aliens for immoral purposes. 39 Stat. 878-879, re-enacted as 66 Stat. 230, 8 U. S. C. § 1328. Thus Congress has acted with respect to the scope of the privilege in prosecutions under a statute kindred to § 2421, but has remained silent so far as § 2421 itself is concerned. The negative implication does not require elaboration.6 *538Moreover, it should be noted that even under § 1328 the testimony of the spouse is made only “admissible and competent,” not compellable.7
In my judgment, the Court in this case strays from the course of appropriate judicial reserve marked by Hawkins. I am unwilling to join in a decision based upon an assumption of fact which is without support in the record and which involves a delicate, and essentially legislative, determination. I therefore dissent.

 Perhaps the Court is merely assuming this to be true arguendo. Since the basic purpose of the exception is to prevent the husband from abusing the wife with impunity, the assumption is amply warranted. See, e. g., Lord Audley’s Trial, 3 How. St. Tr. 401, 402, 414 (1631); Bentley v. Cooke, 3 Doug. 422, 424 (1784) (“[T]hat necessity is not a general necessity, as where no other witness can be had, but a particular necessity, as where, for instance, the wife would otherwise be exposed without remedy to personal injury.” Mansfield, L. C. J.); 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), §2239; Comment, 4 Ark. L. Rev. & Bar Assn. J. 426, 427; Note, 38 Va. L. Rev. 359, 361. All that is necessary to fulfill this purpose is to provide the injured spouse with the means for redress. If she chooses not to utilize that means, there is no greater justification for compelling her testimony in such a case than there is in the normal situation. Although there is concededly authority to the contrary, in my view it is not well reasoned. Since the Court does not disagree, it is unnecessary at this time to discuss the matter in detail.

 The most important testimony regarding the petitioner’s purpose in providing for his wife’s transportation was given by a hotel bellboy, who related various conversations which he had with petitioner. The clerk also testified as to his conversations with the wife, and there is little if anything to distinguish the evidence relating to the wife from that relating to the husband.

 Section 2421, generally speaking, makes it a crime (a) to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any woman for the purpose of prostitution or other immoral purpose, or with the intent of inducing her tp engage in prostitution or other immoral practice, and (b) to secure interstate or foreign transportation for any woman for the above purposes or with the above intent. Section 2422, generally speaking, makes it a crime to induce a woman to travel on common carriers in interstate or foreign commerce for the above purposes or with the above intent.

 Every State has a statute governing the matter. For discussion of these statutes, see 3 Vernier, American Family Laws, 585-586; 2 Wigmore, Evidence, § 488, 8 id., § 2245; 43 Marq. L. Rev. 131, 132; 33 Tulane L. Rev. 884; Note, 38 Va. L. Rev. 359. The many differences among these statutes is further evidence of the divergent views which may be held with respect to the relative importance of the factors involved. It is interesting to note in this connection that apparently only a small minority of States have passed statutes which make the wife competent to testify in a prosecution against her husband for pandering or white slavery when she is the female involved, and only some of these make her compellable as well as competent. See, e. g., Me. Rev. Stat., 1954, c. 134, § 22; Ore. Comp. Laws Ann., 1940, § 23-921; Utah Code Ann., 1943, § 103-51-14; Va. Code, 1950, *536§18-97; W. Va. Code Ann., 1955, §§6062, 6063. See also Note, 38 Va. L. Rev. 359, 366. Nor does the comprehensive British legislation give comfort to the Court. For a description of these statutes, see Evidence of Spouses in Criminal Cases, 99 Sol. J. 551. See also Nokes, Evidence, A Century Of Family Law (Graveson and Crane ed.), 146-149; Scots L. T. (1956), 145. Compare Leach v. Rex, [1912] A. C. 305, with Rex v. Lapworth, [1931] 1 K. B. 117. The experience of the Alabama Supreme Court is instructive. That court, in an “exception of necessity” case, held that the wife was not only competent to testify, but also compellable. Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 53, 10 So. 427. The Alabama Legislature, however, abolished this decision by statute. Ala. Code, 1940, Tit. 15, § 311.

 See the sources cited in note 4, supra. To be sure, the privilege has been strongly attacked by commentators, most of whom rely upon Wigmore’s treatise. Wigmore's lengthy criticism of the privilege is best summarized in his own words:
“This privilege has no longer any good reason for retention. In an age which has so far rationalized, depolarized, and de-ehivalrized the marital relation and the spirit of Femininity as to be willing to enact complete legal and political equality and independence of man and woman, this marital privilege is the merest anachronism, in legal theory, and an indefensible obstruction to truth, in practice.”
8 Wigmore, Evidence, 232.
It is arguable that this is as much an ipse dixit as the statements in favor of the rule which Wigmore criticizes upon that very ground. Id., at 226-228. In any event, it is evident that his conclusion involves value judgments which the legislature is far better adapted to accept or reject than the judiciary.
For a view contrasting with Wigmore's, see Bassett v. United States, 137 U. S. 496, 505-506, where this Court narrowly construed a legislative provision regarding the privilege:
“We do not doubt the power of the legislature to change this ancient and well-supported rule; but an intention to make such a change should not lightly be imputed. It cannot be assumed that it is indifferent to sacred things, or that it means to lower the holy relations *537of husband and wife to the material plane of simple contract. So, before any departure from the rule affirmed through the ages of the common law . . . can be adjudged, the language declaring the .legislative will should be so clear as to prevent doubt as to its intent and limit.”

 The nature of relevant action by Congress and by the state legislatures, see note 4, supra, distinguishes this ease from Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, which held that one spouse was competent to testify on behalf of the other in a criminal trial. As the Court there pointed out, the disqualification was based upon interest, and “[t]he rules of the common law which disqualified as witnesses persons having an interest, long since, in the main, have been abolished both in England and in this country ....” Id., at 380. The contrast between this case and Funk, where the Court was able to rely upon “the general current of legislation and of judicial opinion,” id., at 381, is striking. In this connection, perhaps it should be emphasized that the federal decisions cited in note 2 of the Court’s opinion stand, as the Court indicates, only for the proposition that a Mann Act prosecution falls within the common-law exception so that the wife may testify, and not for the rule that a wife in such a case may be *538compelled, to testify. But see Shores v. United States, 174 F. 2d 838, 841, where the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in dicta that the wife may be compelled to testify in any exception case— a view much broader than that here adopted by this Court.

 This seems to be the plain meaning of the statutory language, though similar language in state statutes has received both broad and narrow constructions. Compare McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218, 186 S. W. 95, with Richardson v. State, 103 Md. 112, 117, 63 A. 317, 319-320. For the view of an English court, see Leach v. Rex, [1912] A. C. 305, 311 (not compellable) (“The principle that a wife is not to be compelled to give evidence against her husband is deep seated in the common law of this country, and I think if it is to be overturned it must be overturned by a clear, definite, and positive enactment, not by an ambiguous one Lord Atkinson). See also 8 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2245 (a); Note, 38 Va, L. Rev. 359, 362-363.