h a l f b a k e r y
On the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
This act of law would impeach the testimony of partners in consensual domestic bonds. It would function the same as the common-law prohibition on a spouse appearing to testify against the other.
I forsee several positive outcomes after this rule is passed:
1. Expectant mothers out of wedlock will find that obtaining health care for their unborn children will be easier if the possible father is not an adversary.
2. Registering a union will become more important (rather than less--the
way churches would have it) as parents realize the benefits of increased government protection of their right to live their lives privately.
3. Litigants will have to thoughtfully consider the possibility that overuse of the court to question potential witnesses will greatly increase the likelihood of people taking the 5th, although this will probably change to "taking the 505"
4. Reality court television may appear so damn simple that it will all be cancelled within a season--to be replaced by the Truman Show.
Rule of Evidence 505
Courts have upheld it, but Congress hasn't made it a law. [reensure, Jul 08 2001]
||In UK, unmarried mothers have more extensive welfare provision than married ones.
||Huh? I haven't yet taken evidence, but I'm pretty sure that the privilege doesn't extend to cases in which the "spouse" is an adversary. So this wouldn't apply to rape cases. I also don't see how it would apply to "expectant mothers out of wedlock," or why prior registration would be desirable (why not just show it at trial?).