Trammel v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Evidence

445 U.S. 40 (1980)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencespousal testimonial privilegeadverse spousal testimonywitness-spousemarital harmonyRule 501federal common law of privilegeconfidential marital communications

Facts

Petitioner was indicted for importing heroin and conspiring to import heroin, and the indictment named his wife as an unindicted co-conspirator. After her arrest in Hawaii with heroin on her person, petitioner's wife agreed to cooperate with the Government and later testified under a grant of use immunity in exchange for assurances of lenient treatment. The district court ruled that she could testify to acts she observed during the marriage and to communications made in the presence of third persons, but not to confidential marital communications. At trial, she testified within those limits, and her testimony constituted virtually the Government's entire case against petitioner.

Issue

May a criminal defendant invoke the privilege against adverse spousal testimony to bar the voluntary testimony of his spouse in a federal criminal trial? More specifically, should the Hawkins rule be modified so that the privilege belongs only to the witness-spouse?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and federal common-law development in light of reason and experience, the privilege against adverse spousal testimony in federal criminal cases is modified so that only the witness-spouse holds the privilege. The witness-spouse may not be compelled to testify adversely, but the accused may not prevent the spouse from testifying voluntarily. This rule does not alter the separate privilege protecting confidential marital communications.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal criminal prosecution in Chicago, Daniel Mercer is charged with mail fraud. His wife, Nina Mercer, remains married to him and tells prosecutors she wants to testify about transactions she personally observed, but Daniel objects and claims spousal privilege.

Should the trial court exclude Nina's testimony based on Daniel's privilege claim?

Explanation. The governing rule is that in federal criminal cases, the privilege against adverse spousal testimony belongs only to the witness-spouse. The witness-spouse may refuse to testify adversely, but if the witness-spouse chooses to testify voluntarily, the accused spouse cannot exclude that testimony on privilege grounds. This rule is limited to adverse spousal testimony and does not abolish all marital privileges.