Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / SpousalPrivilege

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* On ''Series/OneLifeToLive'', David blackmails Dorian into marriage so that neither of them can be forced to testify against each other regarding their obstruction of justice regarding Victor Lord's murder. It's a classic example of HollywoodLaw; spousal privilege applies to things discussed ''during'' the marriage. Even married, what each of them knew about the other before the wedding is fair game.

to:

* On ''Series/OneLifeToLive'', David blackmails Dorian into marriage so that neither of them can be forced to testify against each other regarding their obstruction of justice regarding Victor Lord's murder. murder [[note]] It's a very common SoapOpera trope for people who despise each other to enter into such an arrangement [[/note]] It's a classic example of HollywoodLaw; spousal privilege applies to things discussed ''during'' the marriage. Even married, what each of them knew about the other before the wedding is fair game.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** In another episode, [[=McCoy=]] tries to claim that spousal privilege has been nullified because a third party was present when a man divulged some pertinent information to his wife. Unfortunately, said third party was the couple's marriage counselor, which falls under "doctor-patient" privilege. [=McCoy=] then tries to claim that ''that'' privilege is void because of the presence of a third party, but the judge tells him he can't have it both ways.
*** He gets his own back later when he realizes the doer and his wife were ''legally separated'', a fairly significant legal distinction compared to the normal state of a married couple. He's able to convince a judge that since the "sanctity of [their] marriage" was legally suspended, spousal privilege shouldn't apply. The judge admits they're in uncharted territory but chooses to accept [[=McCoy's=]] argument.

to:

** In another episode, [[=McCoy=]] [=McCoy=] tries to claim that spousal privilege has been nullified because a third party was present when a man divulged some pertinent information to his wife. Unfortunately, said third party was the couple's marriage counselor, which falls under "doctor-patient" privilege. [=McCoy=] then tries to claim that ''that'' privilege is void because of the presence of a third party, but the judge tells him he can't have it both ways.
*** He gets his own back later when he realizes the doer and his wife were ''legally separated'', a fairly significant legal distinction compared to the normal state of a married couple. He's able to convince a judge that since the "sanctity of [their] marriage" was legally suspended, spousal privilege shouldn't apply. The judge admits they're in uncharted territory but chooses to accept [[=McCoy's=]] [=McCoy's=] argument.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** He gets his own back later when he realizes the doer and his wife were ''legally separated'', a fairly significant legal distinction compared to the normal state of a married couple. He's able to convince a judge that since the "sanctity of [their] marriage" was legally suspended, spousal privilege shouldn't apply. The judge admits they're in uncharted territory but chooses to accept [[=McCoy's=]] argument.



** One episode revolves around the concept that two villains had married their victims ''precisely'' to abuse spousal privilege, something with which they openly mock the detectives. Their overconfidence eventually backfires when [[spoiler: investigations dig up a prior marriage license they hadn't gotten annulled, making their ''current'' marriages null and void]].

to:

** One episode revolves around the concept that two villains had married their victims ''precisely'' to abuse spousal privilege, something with which they openly mock the detectives. Their overconfidence eventually backfires when [[spoiler: investigations [[spoiler:investigations dig up a prior marriage license they hadn't gotten annulled, making their ''current'' marriages null and void]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added an example

Added DiffLines:

* In one episode of ''Series/CriminalMinds,'' the unsub is apprehended while attempting to murder his husband. As he's dragged away, he reminds his husband that they're still married, so he isn't allowed to help the police. Reid assures the husband that spousal privilege isn't all-encompassing, so he's only prohibited from testifying about conversations. He's still allowed to testify about what his husband did to him, just nothing he confessed.

Added: 196

Changed: 199

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* On ''Series/TheGoodPlace'', Jason doesn't quite get how it works. He suggests that if he and Pillboi get caught robbing a restaurant, they should just marry each other and then nobody will be able to testify against them.

to:

* On ''Series/TheGoodPlace'', ''Series/TheGoodPlace'':
**
Jason doesn't quite get how it works. He suggests that if he and Pillboi get caught robbing a restaurant, they should just marry each other and then nobody will be able to testify against them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

[[folder:Western Animation]]

* ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}:'' During "Into the Wild Green Yonder", Leo Wong is called up to testify against the Feministas, including his own daughter. After being told he can't be made to testify against Amy, he casually admits he has no problem doing so, before adding "also, I have plenty of stuff to say about my wife."
* ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons:'' In the Treehouse of Horror episode "I Know What You Diddily-Did", Homer ends his "eulogy" for Ned Flanders by hastily declaring that a man cannot testify against his wife, since he and Marge think she killed Ned.

[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** In a later episode, he also tries proposing to his own arresting officer, again out of a deep misunderstanding of how it works.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* In one episode of ''Series/TheGoodWife'', a businessman Alicia is defending tries to claim spousal privilege relating to his husband, same-sex marriage being legal in Illinois but federally illegal at the time of airing. This attracts the attention of a CrusadingLawyer who is trying to get the Defense of Marriage Act overturned and thinks he could use the spousal privilege question as part of an equal protection argument. [[spoiler:Lockhart & Gardner ultimately TakesAThirdOption and gets their client acquitted.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/InOldChicago'': After the final open break between Jack and Dion, Jack issues a subpoena to Dion's lover Belle. Dion then reforms, saying he'll help Jack clean up the Patch (a Chicago slum), and asks Belle to marry him. Jack performs the ceremony, and as soon as he pronounces Dion and Belle man and wife, Dion starts laughing. It was all an act designed to make sure Belle can't testify against him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* In ''Film/TheManFromKangaroo'', one of the reasons why IllegalGuardian Marti Giles wants to marry his charge Muriel is so she cannot testify against him for embezzling from her family fortune. Note that this would have been true at the time the movie was made.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In Scotland, the privilege against self-incrimination extends to an admission of adultery. Similarly, a wife cannot be guilty of reset (selling or profiting from) of goods stolen by her husband.

to:

* In Scotland, the privilege against self-incrimination extends to an admission of adultery. Similarly, a wife cannot be guilty of [[FellOffTheBackOfATruck reset (selling or profiting from) of goods stolen by her husband.
husband]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


--'''Rafael Barba''': If I thought the husband was good for a murder? I'd cross-examine the ''priest''.

to:

--'''Rafael --->'''Rafael Barba''': If I thought the husband was good for a murder? I'd cross-examine the ''priest''.

Added: 103

Changed: 252

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The "Criminal Hatred" episode had a homosexual rapist stop his husband testifying this way. [[spoiler: The husband still provides evidence that convicts the rapist for the death of one of his victims.]]

to:

** The "Criminal Hatred" episode had a homosexual rapist stop his husband testifying this way. [[spoiler: The husband still provides evidence that convicts the rapist for the death of one of his victims.]]]] Provides a funny moment when the ADA prosecuting the case lists off every reason he can think of to consider the marriage invalid; when Benson asks him if he would challenge a ''straight'' marriage that way, his response has to be seen to be believed.
--'''Rafael Barba''': If I thought the husband was good for a murder? I'd cross-examine the ''priest''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In the Creator/SidneySheldon novel ''Master Of The Game'', Keith blackmails Eve into marrying him by revealing that he knows she killed George Mellis (as revenge for brutally assaulting her several years prior). When he tells her that if they were married, he couldn't be forced to testify against her, she reluctantly agrees - but is infuriated when she realizes that they have to ''stay'' married because there's no statute of limitations on murder.

to:

* In the Creator/SidneySheldon novel ''Master Of The Game'', Keith blackmails Eve into marrying him by revealing that he knows she killed George Mellis (as revenge for brutally assaulting her several years prior). When he tells her that if they were married, he couldn't be forced to testify against her, she reluctantly agrees - but is infuriated when she realizes that they have to ''stay'' married because there's no statute of limitations on murder.
murder. He turns the tables by disfiguring her after she cheats on him and she now becomes his slave, terrified that he'll leave her because he's repulsed by her ugliness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* On ''Series/TheGoodPlace'', Jason doesn't quite get how it works. He suggests that if he and Pillboi get caught robbing a restaurant, they should just marry each other and then nobody will be able to testify against them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''Film/AngelFace'' (1952), Diane Tremayne conspires with chauffeur Frank Jessup to murder her parents by tampering with their car. Both Diane and Frank are arrested for the deaths, but they get married so they cannot be made to testify against each other.

to:

* In ''Film/AngelFace'' (1952), (1953), Diane Tremayne conspires with chauffeur Frank Jessup to murder her parents by tampering with their car. Both Diane and Frank are arrested for the deaths, but they get married so they cannot be made to testify against each other.

Added: 252

Removed: 240

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/TheCaseOfTheCuriousBride'': In this Franchise/PerryMason movie, the defendant's husband has damaging testimony against her. His family does not approve of her, so they're trying to get the marriage annulled so his testimony will be admissible.



* In the Perry Mason book ''The Case of the Curious Bride'', the defendant's husband has damaging testimony against her. His family does not approve of her, so they're trying to get the marriage annulled so his testimony will be admissible.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past in some jurisdictions (including UK), but definitely not anymore, except in some strict interpretations of [[Islam/UsefulNotes Sharia law]]).

to:

When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past in some jurisdictions (including UK), but definitely not anymore, except in some strict interpretations of [[Islam/UsefulNotes [[UsefulNotes/{{Islam}} Sharia law]]).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past in some jurisdictions, but definitely not anymore, except in some strict interpretations of [[Islam/UsefulNotes Sharia law]]).

to:

When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past in some jurisdictions, jurisdictions (including UK), but definitely not anymore, except in some strict interpretations of [[Islam/UsefulNotes Sharia law]]).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past, but definitely not anymore).

to:

When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be (note that it was true for some time in the past, past in some jurisdictions, but definitely not anymore).anymore, except in some strict interpretations of [[Islam/UsefulNotes Sharia law]]).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be.

to:

When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, even if they want to be.be (note that it was true for some time in the past, but definitely not anymore).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


# Spousal testimonial privilege: If one spouse is on trial, the other cannot be compelled to testify against the one on trial. "Compelled" is important here; if one spouse wants to, say, sell the other out to the cops, the spouse is free to do so (note that this is considerably different from other sorts of legally recognized privileges. In those cases, the party the information is adverse to has the control.) Unlike the Marital confidences privilege, the two have to be married at the time, but this privilege also covers things before marriage.

to:

# Spousal testimonial privilege: If one spouse is on trial, the other cannot be compelled to testify against the one on trial. "Compelled" is important here; if one spouse wants to, say, sell the other out to the cops, the spouse is ''wants'' to testify against their partner, they are free to do so (note so. Note that this is considerably different from other sorts of legally recognized privileges. In those cases, the party the information is adverse to has the control.) Unlike the Marital confidences privilege, the two have to be married at the time, but this privilege also covers things before marriage.



When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, whether he or she wants to or not.

to:

When this is used in fiction, it tends to be ... [[HollywoodLaw broadly]] used to say that the other spouse ''can't'' be a witness, whether he or she wants even if they want to or not.be.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''[[LordPeterWimsey The Nine Tailors]]'' by Creator/DorothyLSayers, the police won't allow [[spoiler:William and Mary Thoday]] to marry until the case is resolved, as they might need her testimony against him.

to:

* In ''[[LordPeterWimsey ''[[Literature/LordPeterWimsey The Nine Tailors]]'' by Creator/DorothyLSayers, the police won't allow [[spoiler:William and Mary Thoday]] to marry until the case is resolved, as they might need her testimony against him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant legal clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this really was the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.

to:

* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant legal clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not ''not'' his spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this really was the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant legal clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this was really the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.

to:

* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant legal clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this was really was the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant law clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his ''legal'' spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this was really the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.

to:

* A plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant law legal clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his ''legal'' spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this was really the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* A major plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution''.

to:

* A major plot point in Creator/AgathaChristie's ''Witness for the Prosecution''.Prosecution'', though, as the story was originally written in 1925, the relevant law clause was spousal ''incompetency'' (e.g., total inability of the wife to testify against her husband regardless of her own will) rather than ''incompellability''. That's why Romaine, wishing to testify against Leonard, has to assert that she is not his ''legal'' spouse (claiming to be legally married to another man), though it's left unclear whether this was really the case and whether it could realistically be proven in the court at the time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The "Criminal Hatred" episode had a homosexual rapist stop his husband testifying this way. [[spoiler: The husband still provides evidence that convicts the rapist for the death of one of his victims.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''Angel Face'' (1952), Diane Tremayne conspires with chauffeur Frank Jessup to murder her parents by tampering with their car. Both Diane and Frank are arrested for the deaths, but they get married so they cannot be made to testify against each other.

to:

* In ''Angel Face'' ''Film/AngelFace'' (1952), Diane Tremayne conspires with chauffeur Frank Jessup to murder her parents by tampering with their car. Both Diane and Frank are arrested for the deaths, but they get married so they cannot be made to testify against each other.

Added: 842

Changed: 808

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added collapsible folders.


[[AC:ComicBooks]]

to:

[[AC:ComicBooks]][[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Comic Books ]]



[[AC:{{Fanfic}}]]

to:

[[AC:{{Fanfic}}]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Fanfic ]]



[[AC:{{Film}}]]

to:

[[AC:{{Film}}]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Film ]]



[[AC:{{Literature}}]]

to:

[[AC:{{Literature}}]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Literature ]]



[[AC:LiveActionTV]]
* In ''Series/{{Weeds}}'', Peter, who is a DEA agent, gets Nancy to marry him in UsefulNotes/LasVegas to convince her that he won't try to arrest her for selling pot. The implication is that he'd be in huge trouble if his wife was a drug dealer, so he'd have a selfish reason to avoid arresting her rather than merely his word, but [[HollywoodLaw since he knew she was a drug dealer before they got married, the marital confidences privilege wouldn't apply and the spousal testimonial privilege wouldn't stop him from testifying if he wanted to]]. This of course doesn't cover the fact he legally blackmailed and coerced her into marriage (a legal contract), as well as a whole slew of other issues.

to:

[[AC:LiveActionTV]]
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Live Action TV ]]

* In ''Series/{{Weeds}}'', Peter, who is a DEA agent, gets Nancy to marry him in UsefulNotes/LasVegas to convince her that he won't try to arrest her for selling pot. The implication is that he'd be in huge trouble if his wife was a drug dealer, so he'd have a selfish reason to avoid arresting her rather than merely his word, but [[HollywoodLaw since he knew she was a drug dealer before they got married, the marital confidences privilege wouldn't apply and the spousal testimonial privilege wouldn't stop him from testifying if he wanted to]]. This of course doesn't cover the fact he legally blackmailed and coerced her into marriage (a legal contract), as well as a whole slew of other issues.



[[AC:RealLife]]

to:

[[AC:RealLife]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Real Life ]]


Added DiffLines:


[[/folder]]

Top