Today in Supreme Court History: November 24, 2001

11/24/2001: Salim Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court would decide his case in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

The Roberts Court (2006)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hotel Employees Local 255 v. Leedom, 358 U.S. 99 (decided November 24, 1958): Court here ends the NLRB’s longstanding hands-off policy as to hotels keeping unions out

Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94 (decided November 24, 1952): striking down on Free Exercise grounds New York statute requiring Russian Orthodox churches to have separate in-state corporate status (as opposed to being administratively subject to Patriarch of Moscow); the opinion contains a history of the disruption caused by the Bolshevik Revolution and Patriarch’s eventual accommodation with the Soviets (the American branch had the right to disassociate when that happened, but it couldn’t be written into law)

Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (decided November 24, 1958): conviction under Mann Act (transporting woman across state boundaries for prostitution) overturned; issue was over the purpose of the trip, and error to allow defendant’s wife to testify against him (violated common law rule as to spousal testimony, and wife was also a prostitute and had conflict of interest) (Stewart, concurring, calls the rule against spousal testimony “a sentimental relic”)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, I thought it was that a spouse could not be *required to* testify, not was prohibited from doing so.

How could we ever have had contested divorces if neither spouse was permitted to testify against the other? Adultery, cruelty, battery were all grounds back then, and the only way to prove it would be to testify against the other spouse...

[defaultdotxbe]

Same for domestic abuse, how could you ever secure a conviction if your victim (and likely sole witness) was barred from testifying? I too understood the spousal rule to prevent compelled testimony, but not testimony generally if they choose to do so.

[David Nieporent]

What confuses a lot of people is that there are two separate privileges that are both often called "spousal privilege."

1) The testimonial privilege: a spouse cannot be forced to testify against his/her spouse during the time period when they are married. But the spouse can testify if he/she chooses.

2) The communications privilege: a spouse is not allowed to testify about confidential communications between them. This survives the end of the marriage, but only applies to communications between them while they were married.

Generally speaking, neither privilege applies if the spouses are adverse to each other in the proceeding. That includes divorces, domestic violence, etc.

Also, keep in mind that the above rules do vary by jurisdiction (including federal vs. state), and one should not actually rely on this blog comment as legal advice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In Sackett v. Sackett, 1964, the wife’s lawyer hired someone to break into the husband’s house and steal photos of the husband with his mistress. The photos were admitted into evidence to prove adultery, the court holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases (which I think is also true in most states).

[Mr. Bumble]

" (Stewart, concurring, calls the rule against spousal testimony “a sentimental relic”)"
Is it? Does it still exist?

[Dan Schiavetta]

In New York at least, it applies only in “actions founded upon adultery”, and even then there are exceptions.

Interspousal communications are still privileged though.

[ReaderY]

In North Carolina the general rile is the spouse has the option of not testifying but can. I believe a number of states currently have such a rule.

Interestingly, North Carolina appears to have a rule exactly opposite New York’s. Criminal adultery (“criminal cohabitation”) is one of the few crimes that spouses can be compelled to testify against their spouses about.

https://www.ncleg.gov/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_8/gs_8-57.html

[Michael P]

Are there any criminal adultery statutes that have not been dead letters since at least Lawrence v. Texas?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Allowing voluntary spousal testimony against the other spouse would undermine marriage – to give just one example, it would open the door for prosecutors to make a suspect an offer (s)he can’t refuse – testify against your spouse or get extra-harsh treatment.

“Voluntary” is a flexible term in the criminal justice system.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In adjudicating cases where one spouse is accused of wronging another, of course they should be able to testify against each other.

But if it’s the spouses against the world – trying to compel their testimony for the sake of third parties (such as a prosecutor) – then the interests of the community in general should require respect for the marital bond.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m reminded of the old TV show “The Millionaire”, in which a billionaire gives a million dollars to a random person. We see the effect the gift has on the guy (I think it was always a man) and his life. At the beginning of each episode the billionaire’s agent gives the $ to the man in an envelope. He says it’s $1 million tax free, and “you are not to tell anyone — except your wife — how you got it.” One sees how this exception is necessary; otherwise she would be suspicious as to the source of the funds and the marriage would likely break up. We also see how it would be enforceable from a testimonial standpoint.

[Krayt]

I assume the show paid the taxes. They can’t just declare it tax free.

Reminds me of furniture stores “paying your sales tax”, and the state objecting to that, having to have it clarified to them they were taxing the transaction, and neither side was the sole required payee; the store had to collect it and send it in though. These same snots tax goods for goods farmer trade, mandating the sales tax be applied to the value.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was fiction.

In-universe, the $ was delivered in cash. One recurring plot point IIRC was the recipients being careful not to spend the $ in a way that would attract the tax man.

[Magister]

According to Wikipedia, the recipient received a cashier's check and was informed each week that "The taxes have already been paid." It aired from 1955 to 1960. In the Twilight Zone episode "The Man in the Bottle" from 1960, a couple wishes for a million dollars but receive a tax bill for $907,000, so that would have been a significant additional amount.