Defendant&#39;s right to surprise prosecution at trial Common law disclosure obligations between prosecutors and defendants appear to be imbalanced: prosecutors basically have to disclose everything they have on defendants defendants have to disclose only alibi and any expert witnesses (and also some extra stuff where co-defendants are involved, but let's consider only single-defendant cases for simplicity) That, on the face of it, allows defendants to surprise prosecution at the trial with any witnesses/evidence that are neither alibi nor experts. Consider this scenario: Dave is on trial. At the time of the alleged crime, Wendy was his wife, but no longer now, so she can be compelled to testify. Peter (prosecutor) approaches her to see if she knows anything against Dave, but she won't talk. At the trial, the defence just calls her out of the blue and she testifies what good guy Dave was and how he could not possibly commit the crime etc. Is that what prosecution just has to be alert to and fly by the seat of their pants, e.g. no way to either compel the defence to disclose the witness in advance, or rule it inadmissible? Similarly, Dave could keep secret his intention to give evidence right till the end of the trial, right?
Although there have long been requirements to disclose certain types of defenses -- alibi, insanity, etc. -- common law jurisdictions have more recently moved in the direction of greater disclosure obligations for the criminal defendant. Virtually every jurisdiction now requires the defendant to disclose his witnesses and his evidence to the prosecution at some point before the trial, at least if the defendant has made discovery demands of the prosecution. For more information on common-law discovery rules, see here.
Short Answer SIMPLIFIED AND UPDATED BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE QUESTION: The marriage is valid, but their marriage will not allow the girlfriend to refuse to testify as a witness in the case. She can be compelled to testify against him under oath, but does not have to testify about the confidential communications that they have with each other after they get married (e.g. if he confesses to her while there are having a private conversation after they are married, while he is outside the jail, while he is meeting with his lawyer). All of her recorded statements made at any time, and everything that happens before they are married are available to be used as evidence at trial (assuming no other rule of evidence excludes it). Only confidential statements made between the wife and the criminal defendant while they are married can be excluded based upon their spousal status. END UPDATE Long Answer This question is about the marital privilege, which is created by statute or case law. There are actually two separate marital privileges that are analyzed separately. Also, I'm simplifying this answer to limit it to the "criminal case with a jury trial" situation. The rules are more complicated when it is not a criminal case, and in a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial, all references to the jury would instead be to the judge. But, almost everyone facing murder charges chooses a trial by jury instead of a bench trial, as is their right. The Husband-Wife Confidential Communications Privilege The stronger marital privilege applies to confidential communications made to a defendant's spouse during the marriage, which the defendant can insist not be presented to the jury. It doesn't matter if the spouse is still married to the defendant at the time of trial. The main exception to this privilege is for crimes committed against the spouse who is testifying, or to a crime committed against a child of either spouse. This privilege does not apply to anything that the defendant says to the girlfriend prior to getting married and does not apply to statements made by the defendant to the spouse when other people were present, and is similar to the attorney-client privilege or the parishioner-clergy privilege. In Florida this privilege, created by statute, reads as follows: Florida Evidence Code Section 90.504 Husband-wife privilege.— (1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife. (2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence. (3) There is no privilege under this section: (a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse. (b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either. (c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made. In many states (and in federal court), this Husband-Wife privilege for confidential communications has an exception for cases where the husband and wife jointly carry out a crime or fraud. But, Florida does not have this exception to the Husband-Wife privilege for confidential communications in state court criminal cases. In federal criminal cases, the case law under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 creates a substantially similar privilege for the purposes of this question. Federal Rule of Evidence 501 is as follows: The common law — as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience — governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision. Since this is a criminal case, the last sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not apply. There are also not any rules regarding this topic that have actually been prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And, neither the U.S. Constitution nor any federal statute creates a husband-wife or spousal testimonial privilege. So, this issue is governed in federal court by "The common law — as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience." The relevant common law rules apply nationwide, although different federal court of appeals circuits may apply them slightly differently when the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't supplied a clear rule. The Spousal Testimonial Privilege The weaker marital privilege (sometimes called the spousal testimonial privilege) in many states, which is similar to the 5th Amendment right of a criminal defendant not to testify at trial, is a criminal defendant's right to prevent his current wife (but not a former spouse) from testifying against him at trial on any matter whatsoever, regardless of whether it relates to something that happened during the marriage or not. This marital privilege often has many exceptions for serious crimes and domestic violence in jurisdictions where it applies. In the federal courts, however (pursuant to case law developed under Federal Rule of Evidence 501), this weaker privilege belongs to the spouse called as a witness rather than to the criminal defendant. The spouse of a criminal defendant isn't required to testify against a current spouse in federal criminal prosecutions, but the spouse and not the criminal defendant gets to decide if the spouse will refuse to testify. There may be exceptions to the federal spousal testimonial privilege in cases where one spouse is accuses of a crime against the spouse or a child of one of the spouses, where they are joint participants in a crime, or where the competency of the criminal defendant is at issue (see Wikipedia). The only exceptions which might plausibly apply in a federal criminal trial are if the criminal defendant is the father of your son, or if the criminal defendant and his girlfriend whom he marries were joint participants in the crime, neither of which seems likely to be the case here. In Florida, the weaker marital privilege also known as the spousal testimonial privilege cannot be asserted in state court criminal prosecutions but may be asserted in federal court criminal prosecutions. (See, e.g., here).
Suborning perjury is a criminal offense, at the federal level under 18 USC 1622, and is especially bad for a law firm to do. An attorney has a duty to not allow a client to lie in a legal proceeding, so instructing a client to lie is worse. Legally speaking, you are not compelled to turn them in to the (local US) authorities, unless your country has some odd law requiring citizens to report crimes in foreign countries. Two things can possibly come out of forwarding such an email to the authorities. One is that they will gain access to privileged communication, which they may not be able to use against the client. The other is that they will have evidence of the attorney committing a crime, which is not privileged. See Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1: There is a privilege protecting communications between attorney and client. The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told. We take no stance on moral questions as to whether you should or should not.
Your confessions, to anyone, can be used against you. If A admits to B that A stole the car, B can testify to what A said. In fact, if B accuses A of a crime and A says nothing (and C witnesses this), C can testify as to what B and A said (or didn't say) – this is known as an adoptive admission, and it is up to the jury to decide if they think the silence is significant. Recordings are likewise admissible. All evidence is in principle defeasible, so if there is a video of "you" committing a crime, you can make the case that it wasn't really you, and the jury will weigh the evidence to see if they are firmly convinced that you did commit the crime (at least in New Jersey... long story about 'burden of proof').
It seems generally uncontroversial that in examining a witness at trial, a lawyer may not ask questions implying that the witness has engaged in some wrongdoing, unless the lawyer has some basis for asking those questions. This is not true. A lawyer is allowed to guess and ask such a question, although if it assumes a fact not in evidence it could be objected to for lack of foundation. For example, the opposing counsel could object if the lawyer asked, "After you drank twelve beers at BigTown Sports Bar, isn't it true that you got into a car and drove away?", because there would be no evidence in the record at that point that he drank twelve beers at BigTown Sports Bar. For instance, in the absence of any evidence indicating that alcohol was involved, I would imagine that a plaintiff's lawyer in an accident case could not cross-examine a defendant with leading questions suggesting that he had been drunk at the time of the crash. Sure he could. He could ask, "Isn't it true that you were drunk at the time of the crash?" There is nothing objectionable about that question. If the answer was "no", however, and the lawyer had nothing else to back up that suggestion, the question might not help the case, but the question is proper. Sometimes a lawyer just has a hunch and goes with it, and sometimes the hunch is right. Is this rule codified in a rule of evidence or is it just rooted in the courts' ideas of decorum and propriety? I can see how it might implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, but that wouldn't seem to provide a remedy to a party who was prejudiced by such behavior. I'm more interested here with civil cases than criminal, where a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights might be complicate the question. It isn't codified because such a rule does not exist. There are some special rules that apply to prosecutors, who are ethically required to bring criminal cases only when they believe that the cases are supported by probable cause. But, that rule applies at the case level and not at the question by question level. Lawyers are also prohibited, especially in criminal cases, from making statements asserting personal knowledge of the credibility of a defendant or witness. This is because this transforms the lawyer from an advocate to a credibility witness. But, the lawyer can ask a judge or jury to find that someone is not credible in closing argument based upon X, Y and Z evidence presented at trial.
(As there are cases that remain sub judice, I will give only a general answer describing the disclosure process.) How does discovery disclosure work for financial crimes? Disclosure for all criminal investigations in England and Wales, including those in to financial crime, are carried out in accordance with Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and its accompanying Code of Practice. A full explanation is given in the Code, but put briefly: the police appoint a Disclosure Officer whose role includes reviewing and assessing everything held by the police, called &quot;material&quot;, and passing details of all &quot;relevant material&quot; to the CPS appointed prosecutor. There are four stages in the police disclosure process, called the 4Rs: Record Retain Review Reveal These 4Rs overlap with three questions that require answering in order: Record and Retain: Q1: Is it &quot;relevant material&quot; to the investigation? If No, nothing further need be done. If Yes then Record and Retain it in a &quot;durable and retrievable format&quot; - write it down, save it to disc etc, keep it safe and in a place where it can be found. Review: Q2: Is it &quot;sensitive material&quot;? e.g. does it relate to informants, covert tactics, information given in confidence etc? Either way, two seperate schedules of relevant material according to its &quot;sensitivity&quot; are created. Reveal: The Disclosure Officer passes both schedules (and the actual material if necessary) to the CPS prosecutor who provides the defence with a copy of the non-sensitive schedule. The prosecutor also asks: Q3: Does the material &quot;undermine the case for the prosecution or assist the defence with theirs&quot;? If No, nothing further need be done. If Yes, the prosecutor must disclose the material to defence, unless it sensitive and giving it to the defence is not, for example, in the public interest as it may jeopardise life, covert operations etc. The prosecutor and police then has to decide whether to drop the case or not in order to protect the reason for the sensitivity. (They may also apply to the Crown Court judge for a Public Interest Immunity certificate which - in very, very rare cases - allows a trial to go ahead in the interests of justice without the defence being made aware of material that may assist their case as long as the whole trial process is fair to the defendant.) The defence, in addition to their copy of the non-sensitive schedule, can apply for sight or copies of and any material that they consider also undermines or assists but has not been disclosed to them by the prosecutor, and is necessary for their case. In the first instance this application is to the CPS prosecutor, but if it is refused the defence may apply to the trial judge for a ruling on whether it must be disclosed or not. The overriding principle is ensuring a fair trial. ETA: It it possible for a party to such a suit to bring evidence to the court without providing the underlying data to the other party? It is possible but the principles of a fair trial, disclosure and the continuity of evidence (what some call the chain of custody) coupled with challeges by the defence are supposed to ensure that the provenance and accuracy of evidence is properly tested and accountable at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) before a trial opens. Unfortunately, especially in highly complex investigations, this does not always seem to be the case.
I believe that you have misinterpreted the case, not least because the Hudgins v I.R.S case involves this only peripherally. The original case Diviaio v Kelly was dealing with a request for the number of photographs taken of the plaintiff and if these had been disseminated outside the CIA. This is in no way shape or form a request for records (the records were found to be legitimately exempt). I see no problem in your FOI request. In fact, I can foresee the response: These, http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/meconlaw.htm, are the laws we use to justify these actions. In a common law jurisdiction, a person (including the government) does not have to prove they are abiding by the law. The onus is on you to prove they aren't; they do not have to help you make your case.
The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3. If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.