Replies

Yes, but what about information Angela may have had which she did not gain through confidential marital communications? This might be information about collateral issues, such as where the jeep was--if she saw the jeep during the magic 8 days, for example (she denied this on TV), or whether she was the one who made that call to the auto shop which Moul said was made by "Mrs. Ricci."

There may be an expansion of the privilege to allow the prevention of disclosure by Angela of info learned by virtue of the marriage relationship btw her and Ricci (info not actually learned through his communications to her), but I don't know if that's the rule in Utah. Is it?

I see you agree with me as to Angela's possibly taking the Fifth in the grand jury--for information for which the marital privilege might not have applied.

My point in that post was, as I recall, that she could have gone into the grand jury, taken the Fifth, and left--and we the public would never be the wiser. You seem to be reminding me that she could have gone into the grand jury, claimed the marital privilege, and possibly the Fifth as well, and left--and we the public would never be the wiser. I agree with you.

Of course, now that Ricci is dead, things change, if there's ever any subpoena to Angela to testify b/f a grand jury on this matter again. Here's something from a "Rule 502," which I think is from Utah Rules of Evidence: "The non-communicating spouse to whom the confidential communication was made is presumed to be authorized, during the life of the communicating spouse, to claim the privilege on behalf of the person who made the confidential communication."

Here's something from a "Rule 502," which I think is from Utah Rules of Evidence: "The non-communicating spouse to whom the confidential communication was made is presumed to be authorized, during the life of the communicating spouse, to claim the privilege on behalf of the person who made the confidential communication."

Could you translate that into terms I can understand? I am not by any means "uneducated", but that comment has me stumped!

Sure, Angela may have info on the case which she did not receive from Ricci during a private conversation with him. In that case, she would have had to answer questions about it, as long as she didn't take the 5th. She could have also lied -- people do that in court, despite their oaths.

What is said to a grand jury is secret, so anyone is free to tell the truth to the grand jury, and lie to the public -- and the public would be none the wiser.

The rule of evidence you referred to has likely been interpreted by the courts, so without reading the case law, I don't know how Ricci's death may change the operation of the privilege.

Angela could claim the privilege on Ricci's behalf during his lifetime, but the rule does not clarify what happens when the communicating spouse dies. That is the sort of thing courts have decide -- unless it is stated further on in the rule.