Trammel v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
445 U.S. 40 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In federal criminal proceedings, the privilege against adverse spousal testimony vests solely in the witness-spouse, who may choose to testify or not. The defendant-spouse cannot prevent the witness-spouse from giving voluntary testimony against them.

Facts:

Otis Trammel and his wife, Elizabeth Ann Trammel, were involved in a conspiracy to import heroin into the United States from Thailand and the Philippines.
In August 1975, Otis and Elizabeth Trammel flew from the Philippines to California carrying heroin, which they, along with co-conspirators, helped distribute.
Elizabeth Trammel later traveled to Thailand and purchased another supply of heroin.
On November 3, 1975, while returning to the United States, Elizabeth Trammel was arrested during a customs search in Hawaii after four ounces of heroin were discovered on her person.
Following her arrest, Elizabeth Trammel agreed to cooperate with the government and testify against her husband in exchange for lenient treatment.

Procedural Posture:

Otis Trammel was indicted with two others in federal District Court for importing heroin and conspiracy.
Prior to trial, Trammel moved to prevent his wife, an unindicted co-conspirator, from testifying against him, asserting the spousal privilege established in Hawkins v. United States.
The District Court denied Trammel's motion, ruling that his wife could testify about acts she observed and communications made in the presence of third parties.
At trial, his wife's testimony was admitted, and Trammel was convicted by a jury.
Trammel appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the Hawkins privilege did not apply to the voluntary testimony of a spouse who was an unindicted co-conspirator.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to re-examine the Hawkins rule.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the federal common law privilege against adverse spousal testimony permit an accused to prevent his spouse from voluntarily testifying against him?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger

No. The privilege against adverse spousal testimony should be modified so that the witness-spouse alone has the privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying by the defendant. The Court's prior ruling in Hawkins v. United States, which allowed the accused to prevent spousal testimony, is no longer justified by reason and experience. The ancient foundations for the privilege—the legal fiction that husband and wife are one and the disqualification of a defendant from testifying—are obsolete. The modern justification of preserving marital harmony is unpersuasive, as the willingness of one spouse to testify against the other is strong evidence that the marital relationship is already severely damaged. Therefore, when a spouse voluntarily chooses to testify, that testimony is admissible because the privilege belongs to the witness, not the accused.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart

No. The judgment to modify the privilege is correct, but the Court's reasoning that 'reason and experience' have changed significantly since the 1958 Hawkins decision is flawed. The arguments for modifying the privilege, based on the obsolescence of its original justifications, were the same arguments the government unsuccessfully made in Hawkins. The 'ancient foundations' had disappeared long before 1958. The Court is not responding to a new shift in societal understanding but is simply accepting arguments it previously rejected and correcting its own prior decision.

Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally alters the spousal testimonial privilege in federal law, overturning the precedent set in Hawkins v. United States. By vesting the privilege solely in the witness-spouse, the Court shifts the power from the accused to the witness, reflecting a modern view of marriage as a partnership of equals rather than a single legal entity. This change aligns federal law with the majority trend in the states and prioritizes the search for truth in criminal proceedings over an outdated conception of marital harmony. The ruling carefully distinguishes this privilege from the separate, and still intact, privilege for confidential marital communications, thereby clarifying the two distinct doctrines.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Trammel v. United States (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature