Michael Jackson's ex-wife is threatening to testify against him in the child molestation case unless he pays her the alimony he owes her.

Excuse me? She has information relevant to the case she was just going to keep mum about? Or she has information irrelevant to the case she's going to distract people with?

I do sympathise with the not getting the money, but come on.

ita, if any of the other lawyeristas are experts on criminal law, they may be able to confirm or correct me. But it may relate to the spousal privilege. The ex-wife may be threatening to waive the privilege.

Other lawyeristas -- how far does the spousal privilege survive divorce? IOW, does it still apply to events during the marriage?

If she has knowledge that he was molesting children, and the law allows her to waive the spousal privilege, and she's in possession of something resembling a soul, she ought to waive the privilege, alimony be damned.

Morning, all!

Happy birthday shrift! We should all have a moment of slounge in your honour. Mine will be from approximately 2pm to approximately 4pm.

Ah, the leisurely shower and cup of tea of the still-on-vacation. I'm up and dressed and ready to go into town to meet my sister for lunch. These obligations are killing me.

Fred, I think that on a policy level, spousal privilege should survive the marriage, for issues specific to the marriage. But Evidence class was a long time ago, and someone like Bon Bon may have more insight than I do.

Spousal Privilege -- First, it applies to communications during marriage. Second, iffn I recall correctly, states vary as to whether the privilege belongs to the defendant-spouse, the testifying-spouse or both. (The party it belongs to is the one which can waive it.) Also, it is waivable in certain situations by operation of law -- usually when one spouse is suing the other.

I'll see if I can find anything on California law.

in Canada, the spousal privilege does not survive the end of the marriage - if they're "irrevocably" separated, she can testify. Canada also has exceptions to the privilege though, and child sexual abuse is one of them. (as is spousal abuse itself, duh)

edit to add: hmmm, I may be wrong about the first part up there - they may have had to be separated at the time of the things she's testifying about, rather than the time of the trial. As others have pointed out, it relates to communications during the marriage.

But I know nothing about american/California criminal law, so that's pretty much interesting but irrelevant information.

Calfornia Code indicates that the privilege belongs to the defendant spounse.

West's Ann.Cal.Evid.Code § 980

Division 8. Privileges (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 4. Particular Privileges

Article 5. Privilege for Confidential Marital Communications (Refs & Annos)

§ 980. Confidential marital communication privilege

Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, a spouse (or his guardian or conservator when he has a guardian or conservator), whether or not a party, has a privilege during the marital relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he claims the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between him and the other spouse while they were husband and wife.

Section 912 deals with certain waivers, such as the failure to assert the privilege, the holder voluntarily disclosing the contents of the communication, etc. This was interesting:

(b) Where two or more persons are joint holders of a privilege provided by Section 954 (lawyer-client privilege), 994 (physician-patient privilege), 1014 (psychotherapist-patient privilege), 1035.8 (sexual assault counselor-victim privilege), or 1037.5 (domestic violence counselor- victim privilege), a waiver of the right of a particular joint holder of the privilege to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege. In the case of the privilege provided by Section 980 (privilege for confidential marital communications), a waiver of the right of one spouse to claim the privilege does not affect the right of the other spouse to claim the privilege.

I think I don't rightly understand spousal privilege, then. I had thought it would mean I wouldn't have to testify against my spouse, but I could if I wanted to.

If that's not how it works, I don't like it. Well, I'm iffy on its point anyway.

But Spousal Privilege only applies to "communication"? So if, say, a spouse observed her husband doing something, it wouldn't apply?