Huh. I thought spousal privilege meant that you weren't forced to testify against your spouse, not that you weren't allowed to.

Maryland makes a distinction between marital communications privilege and spousal privilege. This is the way I understand it:

Marital communications privilege means if one spouse tells the other something in confidence during their marriage the "hearing" spouse is prohibited from testifying about the contents of the conversation even if the parties are no longer married. This privilege is held by the "speaking" spouse - and the theory is - he or she had an expectation of privacy when he or she communicated said information to his/her spouse. Similar to the expectation one has when communicated with one's attorney and similary it is the client who holds the privilege. The "hearing" spouse may testify about activities (that were not communications) or conversations that were not private.

Spousal privilege means that a spouse cannot be forced to testify about his/her spouse - both conversations and activities. The theory is - the government shouldn't intrude on the relationship. This privilege is held by the spouse being called to testify and he/she may choose to waive it at his/her discretion. This privilege does not apply if the couple is no longer married so ex-husbands/ex-wives can be forced to testify against their exes (with the exception of private marital communications for which the privilege is held by the ex.)

Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles

They did? Now I don't feel like such a doof for having LA Raiders in my head as a team name.

They have already re-signed Tice, he will be back.

I just love how next weekend will either compound my season pain in gut-wrenching fashion (by losing to the Packers AGAIN) or possibly make all the pain go away entirely by kicking the Packers out of the post season triumphantly. I don't care what else happens in the post season if they acheive that.

But I'm not confident, to say the least.

Sorry, I have to mock as a Vikings fan, and as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

I understand. You have Randy "He Who Leaves the Game Early" Moss playing for the Minnesota "We Back INTO the Playoffs" Vikings. You are suffering.

Narrator, where is the line around spousal privilege? In other words, although Jackson's ex-wife might not be able to testify against him in court, can police listen to what she has to say, and act on any tips she can provide? If they do, and come up with evidence because of that, would the evidence be admissible in court, even if the tip from her wasn't?

It should be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and thus not admissible. Basically, if the police got information from the wife about communications MJ had with her during the marriage, then they can't use it. For example, if MJ told her where he hid child porn of the boys who visited Neverland, she can't disclose that. If she does and the police find the pictures, they pictures are not admissible againt MJ. UNLESS (in many jurisdictions) if the police can prove that they would have found the pictures independently of that tainted information. If the hiding place was MJ's computer, they would have found them anyway. If the hiding place was somewhere buried on the grounds, maybe not.

But I'm not confident, to say the least.

Yeah. The Pack suck too, even if they win by a last-second Longwell field goal AGAIN. They ain't going noplace past next week no matter what happens.

I'm a Vikings fan too, and I'm treading pretty lightly on the mock front these days, considering how horrible our team is when the other team shows up.

Oh, absolutely, I know. But I live in Chicago, so this season sometimes my only NFL joy is watching the Bears trot out another quarterback to fail spectacularly.

How far does fruit of the poisoned tree go? If she finds them because he told her they existed (but not where) and hands them to the cops -- do they have to throw it out as evidence?

Bounding into natter to wave madly at everyone what wished me a happy.

I don't have to work today. My relatives finally are leaving on a jet plane. I have many books and DVDs and comics. Later, I shall have cake.

Today is a good day. It is mine and I am keeping it.

WRT: MJ's wife and alimony...

isn't it pretty much common knowledge that Michael Jackson is virtually bankrupt at this point? I mean, I remember this being common knowledge prior to the abuse charges and continuing legal fees.

So the fact that he doesn't pay his bills should not have been surprising to his "wife" when it came time for alimony.

Maryland makes a distinction between marital communications privilege and spousal privilege.

Thanks for the information. I think most jurisdictions have a "marital communications privilege" whereas not all have the "spousal privilege." It doesn't look like California does.