- Joined
- Aug 23, 2024
No, that is incorrect. Again,If he was to divorce Kayla right now and marry April, everything that happened before said marriage would still be fair game,
1) A current spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a current spouse about anything, whenever it happened. There, the privilege lies with the witness. The rationale for this rule is preserving marital harmony.
2) A second spousal privilege allows a defendant to prevent any spouse-witness, past or present, from testifying regarding any statements made during a marriage. There, the privilege lies with the defendant, and it applies to statements, not actions, nor "events." The rationale for this rule is mental health generally, and the notion that people should be able to talk to their spouses about anything.
You said "you can't marry someone to prevent them from testifying against you for things that happened before said marriage," and yes, you are correct there. Nick marring April does not give Nick the ability to stop April from testifying against him. What it does is gives April the option of declining to testify against Nick. That is, once married, April cannot be compelled to testify.
I have no idea why you keep qualifying your statements with "probably." This is a bright-line objective standard. There is no ambiguity.