H/T to the BLT for the following story.
A judge in Maryland was conducting a domestic violence trial. The lawyer for the defense asked the judge for a postponement, because the couple (the alleged attacker and the alleged victim) wanted to get married. Rather than postpone the trial, the judge executed the marriage in his chambers (a power that judges legally have.) Because, under spousal privilege rules, the state cannot compel someone to testify against their spouse, and because the alleged victim didn't want to testify, the defendant was found not guilty.
Two groups which claim to be supporting the rights of women have filed official complaints against the judge, and he has been effectively placed on administrative leave. But are the complaints really legitimate?
It seems to me that it would have been clearly within the judge's power to grant a continuance so that the defendant and alleged victim could get married. It may have also been within the judge's discretion to deny such a continuance, but I think that's less clear. The only difference here is that the judge, not wanting to delay the court's business longer than necessary, conducted the marriage himself.
I think it's also helpful to look at the purposes behind what's known as the "spousal privilege." This privilege says that the state's subpoena power (the power to compel someone to testify) does not extend to forcing someone to testify against their spouse. The purpose of the privilege is to stop the state from ruining a relationship and institution that Americans recognize as valuable. The privilege "rests" with the spouse who is being asked to testify. They can choose to testify if they wish, but they cannot be compelled to testify. The idea is that if the spouse is willing to testify, allowing them to do so will not harm the marriage any further than it has been harmed.
This case seems to fall perfectly within the reasoning behind the spousal privilege. While the state should have the power to investigate domestic violence cases without a complaining witness, it should not have the power to interfere with a long standing relationship by forcing one member of it to testify against the other. Prosecutors can cajole, beg, convice, etc. They can wine and dine the alleged victim to get her or him to testify against their abuser. But if we allow them to compel testimony, we will be allowing prosecutors to interfere with marriages at a very fundamental level.
A judge in Maryland was conducting a domestic violence trial. The lawyer for the defense asked the judge for a postponement, because the couple (the alleged attacker and the alleged victim) wanted to get married. Rather than postpone the trial, the judge executed the marriage in his chambers (a power that judges legally have.) Because, under spousal privilege rules, the state cannot compel someone to testify against their spouse, and because the alleged victim didn't want to testify, the defendant was found not guilty.
Two groups which claim to be supporting the rights of women have filed official complaints against the judge, and he has been effectively placed on administrative leave. But are the complaints really legitimate?
It seems to me that it would have been clearly within the judge's power to grant a continuance so that the defendant and alleged victim could get married. It may have also been within the judge's discretion to deny such a continuance, but I think that's less clear. The only difference here is that the judge, not wanting to delay the court's business longer than necessary, conducted the marriage himself.
I think it's also helpful to look at the purposes behind what's known as the "spousal privilege." This privilege says that the state's subpoena power (the power to compel someone to testify) does not extend to forcing someone to testify against their spouse. The purpose of the privilege is to stop the state from ruining a relationship and institution that Americans recognize as valuable. The privilege "rests" with the spouse who is being asked to testify. They can choose to testify if they wish, but they cannot be compelled to testify. The idea is that if the spouse is willing to testify, allowing them to do so will not harm the marriage any further than it has been harmed.
This case seems to fall perfectly within the reasoning behind the spousal privilege. While the state should have the power to investigate domestic violence cases without a complaining witness, it should not have the power to interfere with a long standing relationship by forcing one member of it to testify against the other. Prosecutors can cajole, beg, convice, etc. They can wine and dine the alleged victim to get her or him to testify against their abuser. But if we allow them to compel testimony, we will be allowing prosecutors to interfere with marriages at a very fundamental level.
Wow, I think people are missing the point that this couple has MUCH bigger problems likely coming their way!
ReplyDeleteMaybe. Or maybe this is what's best for each of them. And you're reading again!!
ReplyDelete