Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

And theres no counterveiling social benefit civil

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: o be confidential. Issue: Did Verna's testimony breach any CONFIDENTIAL communications between her and Roger? Was it error to allow Ms. Lewis to testify to what she heard even though the communication was meant to be confidential? Holding: The trial judge specifically limited Verna Stafford's testimony to her personal observations and conversations with her husband which were made in the presence of third persons. Clearly these conversations in the presence of third parties, were not of a confidential nature as required by the privilege. Lewis' testimony was also okay: "The rule is that third parties may testify to communications had between husband and wife, overheard by third persons." irrespective of whether communications between husband and wife are intended to be confidential, third persons may testify as to conversations overheard, whether accidentally or by design. Notes: Federal Rules: Unknown eavesdropper problem. With husband-wife it is considered that unknown eavesdroppers destroy the privilege (but not with any other privilege) o That's because the privilege doesn't have any serious underpinning, if it did unknown eavesdroppers would not destroy the privilege!!! Texas: Does not allow unknow...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online