Chapter 1: History and Development of Rules of Evidence
Case Study
Overview — Based on: Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 84 (1980).
Otis and Elizabeth Trammel, a married couple, were involved in activities that transgressed federal law. Otis Trammel had been indicted, but his wife, Elizabeth, had not, and was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. The prosecution planned to have Elizabeth Trammel testify against Otis Trammel, over his objection that he should be able to prevent his wife from testifying against him. He claimed that he was a holder of the spousal testimonial privilege and could assert it to prevent the adverse testimony of his wife. Otis Trammel cited an earlier Supreme Court decision, Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (1958), which held that a wife could not be compelled to testify against her husband over his objection. The modern justification for the privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship. While the Court, in Hawkins, reaffirmed the vitality of the common-law privilege in the federal courts, it made clear that its decision was not meant to “foreclose whatever changes in the rule may eventually be dictated by ‘reason and experience.’” 358 U.S., at 79. The trial court permitted Elizabeth Trammel to testify against her husband over his objection. In the Trammel prosecution, Elizabeth Trammel was willing to testify against her husband in exchange for leniency from the federal government. The federal prosecutor contended that where a wife was to testify against a husband about non-confidential matters, the old rationale about protecting marriages should have no application in the modern world. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the Federal Rules of Evidence acknowledged the authority of the federal courts to continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges in federal courts. The Court emphasized that since its decision in Hawkins, a number of states had abolished the spousal privilege when the spouse wished to testify about non-confidential matters, and the Court noted that the privilege had been subject to much criticism.
No. The Federal Rules of Evidence contemplated that courts would have to interpret the rules of evidence in light of changing conditions, especially in the area of privileges. Rules of evidence cannot be frozen and become immovable, because society changes. Judicial interpretations change, and adjustments must be made to assure fairness and logic. Legislatures as well as courts may change rules of evidence. Neither the legislative nor the judicial branches of government have complete control over the changes that might be implemented by the other branch. See Chapter 1, Section 1.7, Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (1958), and Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
Yes. The old rule that allowed a defendant’s spouse to prevent the other spouse from testifying against the defendant’s spouse no longer made sense. The original rule prohibiting such testimony was designed to ensure marital harmony, but when a spouse’s interests radically diverge from the other’s interests, and one spouse is willing to testify against the other, there is little marital harmony to preserve, and the witness spouse should be allowed to testify concerning non-confidential matters. See Chapter 1, Section 1.7.