OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE35
Added 2024-08-07 04:49:04 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE34 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs!
Comments
Just wanted to point out that the patron name about Thomas eating the other justices was a Futurama reference. For the bar question I'm going with option A, she can't be forced to testify against him in a criminal case but he can't stop her from testifying about statements made during the marriage.
Cameron
2024-08-14 15:33:45 +0000 UTCi m going with A. because patty in her wacky dog loving ways is also entitled to privilege and has waived it. also: shout out to richard scarry, heather! edit: love you 'rip into it' patron!
lauren
2024-08-10 12:23:33 +0000 UTCI think the answer is A. I was hoping an answer would say "No because Patty waived the privilege" because my understanding was marital privilege didn't force a spouse to not testify against their partner. I'm going with A for that reason. Even the event marital privilege does in some cases mean a spouse couldn't testify against their partner I can't imagine its over something as trivial as hearsay about pet care. B seems wrong because I believe even upon divorce the spouse can invoke the privilege for the time the they were married, C seems obviously stupid, and D would be my second chance answer, I just simply don't think it explains the privilege right as i understand it.
ToddTheOdd
2024-08-08 01:27:13 +0000 UTCOk should C read no because patty has motive to lie?
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-08-07 17:21:47 +0000 UTCI'm pretty sure it's A. Unfortunately, I was once in a situation that necessitated me researching spousal privilege. I remember reading that an exception is when one spouse is suing the other (e.g., divorce). Also, I don't know where Dan got his understanding of spousal privilege, but doesn't it typically refer to spouses not being compelled to testify against one another? I don't recall there being any cone-of-silence laws regarding any statements made during the course of a marriage. This whole question is an attractive distractor, if you ask me.
Kait from Seattle
2024-08-07 16:57:35 +0000 UTCI'm going for A. I've eliminated B and C for similar reasons to Thomas, so when considering A v D, there must be circumstances that are exceptions to the rule on testifying against one's spouse. If D were true, then nobody could ever argue about the conduct of the other spouse during, say, divorce proceedings. Which would be silly. There has to be a mechanism to take action against things a spouse has done. But - those first 3 words - "After their divorce". Surely custody would have been resolved at divorce, but at this post-divorce stage, this is just a disagreement between friends, co-workers, strangers, etc. So maybe that would mean D is correct - it would have been ok to admit the statements during the divorce, but once you get past that stage, you've lost that chance to bring it up. Damn it! I'll stick with A.
John Barker
2024-08-07 09:21:36 +0000 UTC
