Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “after examining the record we cannot say that [wife’s inadmissible privileged] testimony did not have substantial influence on the jury”
• concluding that “after examining the record we cannot say that [wife’s inadmissible privileged] testimony did not have substantial influence on the jury”
• holding that the privilege is applicable only “in a trial where life or liberty is at stake”
• concluding that erroneously admitted evidence, “though in part cumulative,” may have “tip[ped] the scales against petitioner on the close and vital issue of his [state of mind]”
• observing that changes in rule barring testimony of one spouse against another “may eventually be dictated by ‘reason and experience,’ ” (quoting Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 26, 18 U.S.C.A.)
• allowing adverse spousal privilege because adverse testimony found to hurt marriage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).