Wolfle v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1934 · Evidence

EvidenceMarital communications privilegeevidenceprivilegemarital privilegeconfidential communicationshusband-wife communicationsthird-party disclosure

Facts

In a federal criminal trial, the government introduced a statement made by the petitioner in a letter to his wife as evidence of his guilty intent. The statement was proved through the testimony of the petitioner's stenographer, who had taken the letter by dictation and transcribed it. The petitioner argued that the statement was protected as a confidential communication between husband and wife. The communication had been voluntarily disclosed by the petitioner to the stenographer in the course of dictation.

Issue

Whether testimony by a stenographer concerning the contents of a letter dictated by a husband to his wife is excluded by the marital communications privilege. Also, whether federal courts should decide that question by local state statute or by common law principles.

Rule

In federal criminal trials, evidentiary privilege questions are governed, absent congressional legislation, by common law principles as interpreted by the federal courts in light of reason and experience. Marital communications are privileged when privately made in confidence, but communications not intended to be confidential, or voluntarily disclosed to third persons whose participation is not reasonably necessary to preserve marital confidence, are not privileged.

🔒

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 fraud prosecution in Chicago, Daniel Mercer objects when the government offers testimony about a message he sent to his wife through his office assistant. Daniel argues that an Illinois statute would treat the communication as privileged and therefore controlling in federal court.

How should the federal trial court determine the privilege question?

Explanation. The governing rule is that, in federal criminal trials, evidentiary privilege questions are determined by common law principles as interpreted by federal courts in light of reason and experience, absent congressional legislation. The court is not controlled by local state privilege statutes.