The trial judge should overrule the objection.
Because transporting stolen goods across state lines is a federal criminal offense, the trial will be in federal court and therefore the federal rules of evidence (FRE) apply. Under the FREs there are three possible objections that the husband's attorney can raise, all of which are based on privilege: the Attorney-Client Privilege, the Spousal Immunity Privilege, and the Confidential Marital Communications Privilege.
The discussions held by the husband and wife with the attorney and his secretary (who, as an agent of the attorney, is also bound by the privilege) fall under Attorney-Client Privilege. Because the wife is a (potential?) client of the attorney, as well as the husband, those discussions would generally be covered under that privilege. However, because the client holds the privilege (not the attorney), and the wife is a client, she can choose not to be bound by it and thus disclose anything material discussed during those conversations. So, in this case, the judge will overrule an objection brought under Attorney-Client Privilege.
Under the federal rules of evidence, the privilege under Spousal Immunity belongs to the witness-spouse, who would be the wife in this case. Because the wife has volunteered to testify for the prosecution, and she has therefore not been compelled to testify against her husband in this criminal proceeding, she is free to renounce the privilege as it belongs to her. Because it is her choice to renounce the privilege and voluntarily testify for the prosecution, the judge will overrule the attorney's objection brought under the Spousal Immunity Privilege.
Because the Confidential Marital Communications Privilege can only prevent the wife from disclosing confidential communications made between her and her husband, an objection based on this privilege will also be overruled. The wife intends to testify for the prosecution based on a conversation between her husband and herself in front of two "strangers" (the attorney and his secretary), and therefore there can be no expectation of privacy on the husband's part because the conversation was held without the requisite level of marital "intimacy."
The trial judge will thus overrule any of the three possible objections the husband's attorney can raise to the wife's testimony, as not one of the three applicable privileges can exclude it.

Do you agree with the following? Conclude "yes" or "no" and explain why. In your explanation, be sure to provide the rule and apply the law to the facts.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Yes I agree The analysis correctly applies the federal rules of evidence to the three privileges At... View the full answer