United States v. Jarvison

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

409 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceSpousal Testimonial PrivilegeMarriage ValidityNavajo LawTrammelNavajo marriagetraditional marriagecommon law marriage

Facts

Ben Jarvison was prosecuted for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, and the government sought to compel testimony from Esther Jarvison, who it claimed had observed relevant conduct and heard incriminating statements. Esther refused to testify and stated that she and Jarvison had married in a traditional Navajo ceremony on June 25, 1953, at Coyote Canyon on the Navajo Reservation. The government argued the marriage was invalid because Esther did not testify to every element of a traditional ceremony, the marriage was never recorded or validated with the Navajo tribal government, and Jarvison's later relationship with Esther's daughter extinguished any earlier marriage. The district court found the marriage valid and applied the spousal testimonial privilege.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in concluding that Esther and Ben Jarvison had a valid marriage under Navajo law such that Esther could invoke the spousal testimonial privilege. Also, whether the court should create an exception permitting compelled adverse spousal testimony in child abuse cases.

Rule

For Navajo tribal members living within the Navajo Reservation, Navajo law governs the validity of marriage because domestic relations are at the core of tribal sovereignty. Under Navajo law, an unlicensed traditional Navajo marriage occurring before 1954 is valid, failure to license or validate such a marriage does not render it invalid, and a traditional tribal marriage must be terminated by formal divorce. Under Trammel, the witness-spouse alone has the privilege to refuse adverse testimony and may not be compelled to testify.

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 assault prosecution arising in Arizona, prosecutors subpoena Lena Yazzie to testify against Aaron Yazzie. Both are enrolled Navajo members who have lived their entire lives within the Navajo Reservation, and Lena claims they married there in a traditional ceremony decades ago. The government argues Arizona domestic-relations law should determine whether the marriage is valid for privilege purposes.

Which law should the federal court apply to determine whether Lena and Aaron are validly married for purposes of the spousal testimonial privilege?

Explanation. The majority held that when the validity of a marriage between Navajo tribal members living completely within the Navajo Reservation is at issue, Navajo law governs. The court reasoned that domestic relations are central to tribal sovereignty, so state marriage law does not control that validity question.