Micah
Since: Jan, 2001
Apr 9th 2010 at 2:11:05 PM
•••
From the YKTTW—anyone know which one? I'm not managing to google it...
- This was a plot point in one of the Rumpole stories. It involved one of those recidivist families that constantly need Rumpole, Hilda doing Open University (or something like it) over the radio, and the discussion over whether the family knew about the point of law (they didn't), because the wife could be called to give evidence
Dagobitus
Since: Aug, 2010
Jan 8th 2011 at 2:46:41 PM
•••
Magna Charta states that a wie cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. This was later interpreted to mean that a wife can NOT testify against her husband, EVEN if she wants to.
"One of the results of this, when mixed with another old legal concept (you could not testify at your own trial), was that a wife could not testify, for or against, her husband."
Is this correct, or should it say "could not be made to testify"? I seem to remember a documentary saying that the tradition of testifying in your own defence started in the Victorian era when one of the early defence lawyers realised there Ain't No Rule that he couldn't call the defendant as a witness, which makes me doubt the first part.