Matthew Forrest v. Buck Fleming

How courts have described this case

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

• where couple had lived apart for the last 11 years, Testimonial Privilege did not apply because the couple “did not have the kind of vital marriage for which the privilege was created”
• communications concerning defendant’s bank accounts, real estate transactions, credit cards, car registration, and payment of insurance premiums not confidential because defendant knew information was or would be disclosed to third parties or public
• “[T]he communications privilege is unavailable to [the defendant] because most of the evidence sought by the grand jury does not involve marital “communications,” that is, utterances or expressions intended to convey information between spouses.”
• requiring “separation inquiry” by the district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).