Court Cases

Privileges

Imagine attempting to prove your innocence or proving someone else's guilt without the privilege to present evidence. Could the criminal justice system operate without the existence of privileges to evidence? Though there are many privileges there are some that the system could not function without and there are some that the system could do without.

The privilege of evidence allows a person to refuse to make available evidence on individual issues or to object certain evidence from being disclosed or used in a legal or any other ways. On any given year a court can hear approximately 7,000 criminal cases and over 15,000 civil cases and that is only one county of the United States (Supreme Court of the United States, n.d.). To prove anyone's innocence or guilt without the use of evidence would almost, if not definitely, be impossible. Evidence makes material facts more probably or less probable than it would be without evidence. Evidence allows the chance of bias or prejudice to be minimized during court.

There are other privileges that follow along with evidentiary privileges; such as attorney-client privilege, privilege against self-incrimination, without prejudice privilege, public interest privilege, marital privilege, medical professional privilege and clergy-penitent privileges.

Rule 504 deals with husband-wife (also called spousal) privilege. This privilege allows a spouse the privilege to "refuse to testify against the party as to events occurring after the date of their marriage" (Kentucky Legislature, n.d). Rule 504 (b) states that a spouse has the right to refuse to testify against the other party regarding any private communication. Private communication is if it was made from on spousal party to another without intentions of the discussion being disclosed to anyone else. Rule 504 (c) states that although this is a privilege, there are exceptions. Marriage is not a privilege if the spouse conspired or jointly during the commission of a crime, if it was a crime against the other spouse, a minor child or someone in the same household (Wellborn, 2009, pg 522). This privilege allows the spouse to either testify against the spouse or allows them to remain silent. This rule was seen in Trammel v. United States. On March 10, 1976, Trammel and two co-defendants were detained for importing heroin into the United States from Thailand and the Philippine Islands. This indictment named six persons who were not indicted, but were listed as co-conspirators; this included Trammel's spouse, Elizabeth Ann Trammel. On November 3, 1975, Elizabeth boarded a phone with four ounces of heroin on her person. During a routine custom's search in Hawaii, she was discovered with the drug on her person and was arrested. She agreed to cooperate with the DEA and government. During trial Elizabeth was called as a witness for the government and stated she is cooperating with the government under the assumption she would be treated with leniency. She then began to tell her "job" in her spouse's heroin distribution. Trammel was found guilty and an appeal was put into place. His appeal was that the court allowed the "admission of the adverse testimony of his wife, over his objection, contravened prior precedent and therefore constituted reversible error" (Casebriefs, LLC, n.d.). The court of appeals rejected his argument and affirmed his conviction. I believe this privilege does allow for family harmony. This privilege could also assist in certain divorce situations. Many people do crazy things for love and this privilege allows spouses to not have to turn against each other. The United States could exist without this privilege. Though many do crazy things for love, I feel that to include this in the Federal Rules of Evidence as a privilege, removes one of the most valuable witnesses. To me, allowing this privilege is allowing accessories to a crime to remain silent. Yes, each marriage has a right to privacy but it should not include if your spouse is trafficking drugs or killing people.

The attorney-client privilege, also called the solicitor-client privilege is yet another privilege that is given through the Federal Rule of Evidence. This privilege is "a client's privilege to refuge to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney" (The Free Dictionary, n.d). This privilege allows clients to be able to disclose any and all pertinent information to their attorney without the fear of incriminating themselves with the information during the trial. There are exceptions based on Federal Rules of Evidence 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence stating "the recognition of a privilege based on a confidential relationship...should be determined on a case-by-case basis" (The Free Dictionary). A form of this privilege is seen during court case United States v Leventhal 961 F.29d 936 (11th cir 1192). In this case, a Florida attorney, Robert Leventhal refused to reveal client information to the IRS who paid him over $10,000 in cash. Leventhal stated that his clients wished to remain anonymous and contended that the attorney-client privilege gave him and his clients that right. The Federal Government then sued Leventhal in order to obtain the clients information. The court ruled that the client's identities or payment only establishes attorney-client relationship, no actually disclosure of discussion would be revealed. This privilege allows the conversations to be confidential although proof of clientele may be necessary if dealing with the IRS or other federal government agencies. This privilege is one that the United States could not live without. If an attorney did not have this privilege, defense attorneys would never win a case. When a defendant hires an attorney, they have to discuss, in detail, the matter of their crime. If there was not this privilege was not intact, their attorney would have to disclose all information that would pin them as guilty for the crime. A client must feel that their hired attorney will take all the details of the case, no matter how incriminating and attempt to get the jury or judge to see the defendant as innocent. The defendant also has to trust that any information disclosed to the attorney will not be revealed during trial.

Another privilege that is given is public interest privilege (formerly Crown privilege). This law, under common law, stops the unavoidable disclosure of records and documentation which does not serve a purpose in public interest. There is a balance; if public interest is less than public interest in confidentiality, it will be under this privilege. This privilege is not vested in any part like other privileges. The court may make a self-made motion to preclude admission of any