## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Colette Pean and others for conspiracy to commit armed robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
- Pean’s husband, Jean Ford, was subpoenaed to testify before a special grand jury during a continuing investigation aimed at a possible superseding indictment.
- Ford moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the privilege against adverse spousal testimony on the ground that his testimony could harm his wife, a target and already-indicted defendant.
- The government proposed a “screening” procedure and represented that Ford would be questioned by an Assistant U.S. Attorney not involved in Pean’s prosecution, that Pean’s prosecutors and agents would be excluded from the testimony and denied access to its contents, and that Ford’s testimony would not be used directly or indirectly against Pean.
- The district court denied the motion to quash, Ford refused to testify, and the court held him in civil contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether a grand jury witness may refuse to testify under the privilege against adverse spousal testimony when the government provides court-accepted assurances and screening measures preventing any direct or derivative use of the testimony against the witness’s spouse.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the civil contempt order.
- The court held that, given the government’s binding non-use assurances and insulation procedures, Ford could not rely on the adverse spousal testimony privilege to refuse to testify.
- The court concluded the screening measures were legally sufficient to protect the interests the privilege is meant to serve, and Ford’s continued refusal justified civil contempt.

## Legal Principles

- The privilege against adverse spousal testimony is aimed at preventing compelled testimony that is used to harm a spouse in criminal proceedings; it is not an absolute right to withhold relevant evidence from a grand jury.
- When the government provides enforceable protections ensuring testimony will not be used, directly or indirectly, against the spouse, the rationale for the privilege is neutralized and the privilege does not justify noncompliance.
- Screening arrangements that prevent exposure of the spouse’s prosecutors and investigators to the testimony and its fruits can satisfy the required non-use protection.
- Civil contempt may be used to coerce compliance with a valid grand jury subpoena once no applicable privilege excuses refusal to testify.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a civil contempt citation against a husband who refused to testify before a grand jury, holding that the adverse spousal testimony privilege did not apply where the government, under court-approved screening procedures, guaranteed that the testimony and any fruits would not be used against the witness’s indicted spouse.


In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Jean Ford, 756 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1985)