Didn’t you just state that state laws generally provide for spousal protections? I believe that is reasoned. So my red herring wasn’t so red herring after all was it.
Judges make determinations all the time regarding what juries will or will not hear. Not all of it is expressly written in the U. S. Constitution.
I’m sticking with my decision. You can file an appeal.
Your ruling then is based on relevancy rather than fifth amendment rights. That’s fine. That is discretionary. However this judge ruled it relevant and it was challenged on constitutional grounds.
Do you believe that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated?
I don’t know if this has been posted yet...
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he’s told of his right to remain silent.
The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.
Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.
The high court upheld that decision.”
http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-pre-miranda-silence-used-142855241.html
“Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2013. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred only in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
“On Monday, June 17, 2013, in a closely-contested decision, the United States Supreme Court held that prosecutors can in fact point to an out-of-custody suspect’s silence in response to police questioning as evidence of guilt. (Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).) The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence at trial of the suspect’s silence is to explicitly invoke the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger a “I want to invoke my right to be silent!”), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, “I’m not saying anything because I invoke my right to silence.”
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html