Gay Man On Trial Seeks To Keep Partner From Testifying

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112505spouse.htm

A gay man charged in an $11.2 million embezzlement case has asked a judge to rule that the state's marital privilege law, which protects husbands and wives from having to testify against each other in criminal court, also applies to same-sex partners.

Stephen Signorelli, of Manhattan, is fighting charges that he stole at least $219,000 from a public school district in Roslyn, N.Y., as part of a broader series of schemes that cost the district millions.

His domestic partner, Frank Tassone (pictured), the district's former superintendent, pleaded guilty this year to stealing $1 million between 1996 and 2002. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, which meant he might have to take the stand in Signorelli's trial.

[chalky]

1. What's the rationale behind protecting spouses from testifying against

one another? I'm fuzzy on this.

But yes, I believe this couple should receive the same protections.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. What's the legal rationale for the husband-wife marriage privilege

What's the legal rationale for the husband-wife (h&w) marriage privilege against testifying, one to the another? Simple, really. It's very similar to other communication privileges that are protected in common law and statutory law in America.

It is to protect the "Institution of Marriage" (a legal term). Why such a marriage protection? So that husband and wife will feel free to openly communicate with each other during their marriage. Communication between married couples is a basic element of marriage. Broadly speaking, governments (federal and state) cannot intrude upon the (constitutional) fundamental right of marriage. If there were no privilege then communications would be chilled within marriages thereby causing the decline of marriage.

Of course, the privilege varies jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction (state-to-state, federal) across America. Most jurisdictions have a blanket h&w privilege in criminal cases with some exceptions.

A DUer raised whether, e.g., Vermont's civil union would attach. The answer is yes Vermont's civil union privilege would be the same as any Vermont h&w privilege. But of course there would be no privilege in any federal case of a civil unioned Vermont same-sex couple. Other states who adopt civil unions would vary according to what the civil union law/court decision indicates. Overall, civil unions have no federal law protections whatsoever. Nor do any American states civil unions enjoy foreign recognition.

.

[CatBoreal]

2. Didn't Rosie O'Donnell go through something similar at her trial??

Her letters and emails to her partner were read in court. The correspondence would have been considered privileged and off limits had they been a heterosexual couple.

[MADem]

3. I wonder how they would rule if the two were married in MA, or had a

civil union in VT or CT?

[davidinalameda]

4. I have no problem with them invoking this

they took advantage of everything that was available to them in their state

they have been together for 30 plus years

and I believe that other courts in New York have ruled that domestic partners do have the same rights as married couples

[MADem]

5. I don't either, but it would really push the issue front and center

had they had one of those "state's rights" pieces of paper.

[TaleWgnDg]

7. See post #6 (above) . . .

________________

edited to add:
In addition, all that attaches in Massachusetts law -- common law or statutory law -- attaches to all married couples, heterosexual or homosexual marriage while in Massachusetts. However, there are no legal protections in federal law for Massachusetts legally married same-sex couples, as yet, as well as no protections are available to these couples in other states w/i America or on foreign soil, as yet.

.