it is important from a societal standpoint that the communications be open and honest and free from forced disclosure

From my dictatorial corner, I think it's more important that people are urged to be honest than communications are protected so that there's a bit less pressure for them to be so.

But I am reading this right? I can tell my husband about the blackmail and murder, but he CANNOT testify about it, even if he, say, has a conscience?

I can tell my husband about the blackmail and murder, but he CANNOT testify about it, even if he, say, has a conscience?

Yes. Unless there is some exception. For example, if he was charged with the crime, he may be able to testify at his trial that you admitted to him that you committed it. However, his testimony likely could still not be admitted at your trial to convict you.

you're welcome Frank.

lunch was enh.

my office is way hot and I have the a/c on - ridiculous.

I am going to put off drafting letters even longer by emailing. 1 work, 1 not.

So this is sorta like doctor-patient confidentiality? But there are exceptions to doctor-patient confidentiality, like if a psychiatrist believes his patient will hurt someone, he is obligated to tell authorities.

So if a man tells his wife, "tomorrow I'm going to kill a bunch of people at work," is she obligated to call the police?

I'm surprised that spousal privilege doesn't come with the same exceptions as doctor/patient privilege. (Except, apparently, in Canada.) Duty-to-warn is a kind of young theory, but as theories for the legal violation of existing privilege go, I'm a fan.

That is truly bizarro, about the "LA Angels of Anaheim". That is sort of like saying I am the San Diego Padres of Santa Barbara, right? Or the Boston Red Sox of Albany.

Or the Boston Red Sox of Albany.

The "duty to warn" exception has largely applied (if at all) to professional privileges -- attorney-client or psychiatrist-patient or priest-penitent. I haven't seen it much in the spousal situation.

Boston Red Sox of Albany

Snerk

I suppose that duty-to-warn, outside of a professional relationship (where, e.g., it is expertise that tells you "yes, Dude X is crazy enough to attack Dude Y" or "Yes, Dude X attacking Dude Y is, in fact, illegal"), would fall into more of the Good Samaritan context than anything else. Right? I'm neither a shrink nor a lawyer, so it's not my professional responsibility to warn Dude Y, just the responsibility of my citizenship, as my state/province/country defines it.

That is truly bizarro, about the "LA Angels of Anaheim".

It's because their lease with the city of Anaheim (where the stadium is) requires them to include "Anaheim" in their official name. Of course, everyone will shorten it back to "LA Angels", just as everyone shortens the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" down to "Rhode Island."

eta: I will note that the football Giants and Jets don't even play in the same state as the city from which they take their official names.