Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the spousal privilege and its application in the law of evidence. In it, the Court held that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from ...
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). Trammel v. United States. No. 78- 5705. Argued October 29, 30, 1979. Decided February 27, 1980. 445 U.S. 40 ... BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined.
Otis Trammel, Jr. was indicted on federal drug charges. Before his trial, he advised the court that the Government would call his wife as a witness against him. The indictment named Mrs. Trammel as an unindicted co-conspirator and the Government granted her immunity in exchange for her testimony. Otis moved to assert a ...
TRAMMEL v. UNITED STATES, (1980). No. 78-5705. Argued: Decided: February 27, 1980. Prior to his trial with others on federal drug charges, petitioner advised ... BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE , MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined.
Citation. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L. Ed. 2d 186, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 84, 5 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 737 (U.S. Feb. 27,
Washington University Law Review · Volume 59 | Issue 2. January 1981. Witness -Spouse Alone May Exercise Spousal. Testimonial Privilege in Federal Criminal Cases,. Trammel v. United States 445 U.S. 40 (1980) .... White, 545 F.2d 1129, 1130 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. McElrath, 377. F.2d 508, 510 (6th Cir.
View Trammel v. United States case brief from LAW 6353 at Colorado. Week 4 case brief Trammel v. United States 445 U.S. 40100 S. Ct. 906,63 L. Ed. 2d 186, 1980 U.S. Fact: Based on the testimony of.
Nov 4, 2013 ... As a verb, “trammel” means to constrain or hinder. “Trample” means step heavily upon, crush, or treat with disrespect. Had the judge written “trample,” the image would be of someone's religious freedom being stomped into the dust, a much more violent and damaging treatment of the freedom of religion.
Jan 11, 2006 ... the ground that these two doctrines serve different purposes. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62–64. 21 Davis, 126 S.Ct at 1365. 22 See Raeder, supra note 3, at 320. 23Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51–52 (citing Brief for Petitioner at 23). 24 Id (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 365 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring).