Facts
- Otis Trammel, Jr. was indicted on federal narcotics charges involving smuggling heroin into the United States and conspiracy to import.
- Trammel’s wife was identified in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.
- The government intended to call Trammel’s wife as an adverse witness; Trammel asserted a marital privilege to prevent her testimony.
- The district court excluded confidential marital communications but allowed the wife to testify about observed acts and nonconfidential statements, including communications made in the presence of third persons.
- The wife testified under a grant of immunity and assurances of lenient treatment and provided substantial adverse testimony.
- Trammel was convicted largely based on his wife’s testimony.
Issues
- Whether a criminal defendant may, over the witness-spouse’s willingness to testify, invoke a marital privilege to bar adverse spousal testimony in federal court.
- Whether federal privilege law should continue to follow the prior rule requiring both spouses’ consent for adverse spousal testimony.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed Trammel’s conviction.
- The Court modified the prior federal rule and held that the privilege against adverse spousal testimony belongs solely to the witness-spouse.
- A witness-spouse may refuse to testify adversely but cannot be compelled to testify and cannot be barred from testifying when willing.
- The separate privilege protecting confidential marital communications remained intact; only nonconfidential testimony was admitted against Trammel.
Legal Principles
- Under federal common law as informed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501, testimonial privileges may be reexamined in light of “reason and experience.”
- The adverse spousal testimony privilege is held only by the witness-spouse; the accused spouse has no right to exclude a willing spouse’s adverse testimony.
- The confidential marital communications privilege is distinct and continues to protect private communications made in confidence during the marriage.
- Government grants of immunity or leniency to a witness-spouse do not, by themselves, prevent admission of the spouse’s testimony where the spouse chooses to testify.
Conclusion
Federal law permits a spouse to testify adversely against a defendant spouse if the witness-spouse chooses to do so; the defendant cannot veto that testimony, though confidential marital communications remain protected.