Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Wolfle v. United States
Wolfle v. United States, 54 S. Ct. 279 (1934)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1934-01-08
- Topic
- general
finding husband’s letter to wife not “confidential” because it had been dictated to stenographer | referring to the common law spousal privilege as applied by federal courts | the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials in the federal courts "is to be controlled by common law principles, not by local statute" | the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials in the federal courts “is to be controlled by common law principles, not by local statute” | “privilege suppresses relevant testimony and should be allowed only when it is plain that marital confidence cannot otherwise reasonably be preserved” | “Communications between the spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have been confidential, and hence they are privileged.” | “[T]he spousal communication privilege applies only to husband/wife communications when no third party is present.” | “a communication otherwise privileged loses its privileged character on coming into the hands of a third party” | “[W]herever a communication, because of its nature or the circumstances under which it was made, was obviously not intended to be confidential it is not a privileged communication.” | husband’s letter to wife not “confidential” because it had been dictated to stenographer | husband's letter to wife not "confidential" because it had been dictated to stenographer | discussing the history and development of the marital communications privilege | communication from husband to wife through stenographer is not confidential | “The basis of the immunity given to communications between husband and wife is the protection of marital confidences, regarded as so essential to the preservation of the marital relationship as to outweigh the disadvantage to the administration of justice which the privilege entails.” | for privilege to apply, “communication must have been made in confidence”
Citator
- Cited by
- 152 opinions
WOLFLEv. UNITED STATES,291 U.S. 7(1934)
54 S.Ct. 279
WOLFLEv. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 338.
Argued December 12, 1933.
Decided January 8, 1934.
CERTIORARI,290 U.S. 617, to review the affirmance of a
conviction under an indictment charging unlawful uses of the
mails for the purpose of effecting a scheme to defraud.
The state statute preserves the common-law privilege of communications from husband to wife.
In courts of the United States the common law rule governs.Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co. v.Schaefer,94 U.S. 457;Liggettv.Glenn, 51 F. 381;Rosenv.United States,245 U.S. 467.
There is a conflict in the decisions as to the admissibility of privileged communications where testimony thereof is procured from witnesses other than husband or wife, attorney and client, or physician and patient. This turnsPage 8upon whether the particular court adopts one or the other of two tests:First, that if the communication originates in confidence and under circumstances intended to be privileged, and if the privilege is not consciously surrendered, the privilege will be enforced and the communication excluded; or,second, that regardless of the privileged origin and confidential nature, admissibility is purely a matter of custody of the communication; if it has been filched by any means, surreptitious or otherwise, the communication will be admitted. The first line of cases seek to consult the nature and the purpose of the communication and to carry out the policy of the principle. The second line of cases disregard the purpose and the policy and erroneously treat the privilege as if it were in derogation of the common law, seizing upon any circumstance, however slight, in order to defeat the privilege.
Among the cases repudiating this false doctrine are:Grossv.State,61 Tex.Crim. 470;Liggettv.Glenn, 51 F. 381;Mercerv.State,40 Fla. 716;Scottv.Commonwealth,94 Ky. 511;Hendersonv.Chaires,25 Fla. 26;Seldenv.State,74 Wis. 271;Wilkersonv.State,91 Ga. 729;Statev.McKie,165 Ga. 210.
The privilege extends not only to the attorney, but to the attorney's secretary, stenographers or clerks. Taylor, Evidence, §§ 920, 946. Cf.Plunkettv.Coblett, 1804, 29 How. St. Tr. 71;Solomonsv.Chubb, 1852, 3 Carr K. 75;Forbesv.Samuel, 1913, 3 K.B. 719, 82 L.K.J.B. 1135;Taylorv.Foster, 1825, 2 C. P. 195, 172 E.R. 89;DuBarrev.Livette, Peake N.P.C. 78;Parkinsv.Hawkshaw, 2 Stark. 239, 171 E.R. 633;Kingv.Upper Bodington, 1826, 5 L.J.M.C. 10 (1827);Wartellv.Novograd,48 R.I. 296;Huntv.Taylor,22 Vt. 556;Sibleyv.Waffle,16 N.Y. 180;In reArnott, 1888, 60 L.T.N.S. 109;Statev.Brown, 1896, 2 Marv. 380.
Although the privilege between physician and patient is statutory, the courts do not construe the statutesPage 9strictly, as in derogation of the common law, but very uniformly include within the privilege not only the patient and physician, but communications made to the physician's nurse, technician or X-ray specialist, or a communication made by the patient to the physician in the presence of any of the physician's necessary assistants.Culverv.Union Pacific,112 Neb. 441;PowerLightv.Jordan, 132 So. 483;Toolev.Franklin InvestmentCo.,158 Wn. 696;Chicago, Lake Shore Ry. Co. v.Walas,192 Ind. 369;Colorado Fuel Iron Co. v.Cummings,8 Colo. App. 541;Owensv.Kansas City, C.C. S.J. Ry. Co., 225 S.W. 234;Sparerv.Travelers,173 N.Y.S. 673;Pricev.Standard Life A. Ins. Co.,90 Minn. 264.
Federal cases support the rule that a privileged communication remains privileged, irrespective of custody.Bowmanv.Patrick, 32 F. 368. Cf.Liggettv.Glenn, 51 F. 381;Drierv.Continental Life, 24 F. 670;Connecticut Mutualv.Schaefer,94 U.S. 457.
For a recent expression upon the privilege between husband and wife. seeNew York Lifev.Ross,30 F.2d 80.
The stenographer in this case was an agent and representative, and not a stranger or third person. Wigmore, Evidence, 2d ed., §2339. Distinguishingid., § 2336;Cottonv.State,87 Ala. 75;Peoplev.Dunnigan,163 Mich. 349;Pearcev.Pearce, 1847, 16 L.J.Ch. 153;Statev.Wilkins,72 Or. 77;Statev.Nelson,39 Wn. 221;Statev.Falsetta,43 Wn. 159;Commonwealthv.Everson,123 Ky. 330;Statev.Young,97 N.J.L. 501;Hammonsv.State,73 Ark. 495;Hopkinsv.Grimshaw,165 U.S. 342.
Under the great weight of authority today, the dictation of libelous statements to a stenographer, or the delivery of a written libelous communication to a stenographer, clerk, typist, or agent, do not constitute delivery or publication and are deemed privileged. This was not always the case. It is a modern growth and development in the law. SeePullmanv.Hill, 1 Q.B. 524;Boxiusv.Goblet Freres, 1894,Page 101 Q.B. 842;Lawlessv.Anglo-American Cotton Co., L.R. 4 Q.B. 262;Edmondsonv.Birch, L.R. 1 K.B. 371, 1907;Osbornv.Boulter(C.A. 1930), 2 K.B. 226.
Many American cases have adopted the rule ofEdmondsonv.Birch, supra, repudiatingPullmanv.Hill, supra, notably such cases asGlobe Furniturev.Wright, 265 F. 873;Owenv.Ogilvie,53 N.Y.S. 1033;Cartwright-Caps Co. v.FischelKaufman,113 Miss. 359;Flynnv.Western Union Tel. Co.,199 Wis. 124;Princev.Holland N.A. Mortgage Co.,107 Wn. 206.
Privilege can not be defeated by secondary proof.Dawkinsv.Rokevy, 1873, 44 L.J.R.Q.B. 63 (Ex.);Atwoodv.Chapman, 1914, 3 K.B. 275;Chattertonv.Secretary of State, 1895, 2 Q.B. 189;Bowmanv.Norton, 1931, 5 C. P. 177; Taylor, Evidence, p. 622.
Courts will not sanction evidence violative of public policy or principles of law. See opinion of Justice Brandeis inOlmsteadv.United States,277 U.S. 438;Gouledv.UnitedStates,255 U.S. 298;Boyd Case,116 U.S. 616;Weeks Case,232 U.S. 383;Amos Case,255 U.S. 313;Silverthorne Case,251 U.S. 385.Assistant Solicitor General MacLean, with whomSolicitorGeneral BiggsandMessrs. Harry S. RidgelyandW. MarvinSmithwere on the brief, for the United States.
The law applicable in determining the question of privilege is the law of Washington at the time Washington was admitted into the Union as a State.
Petitioner's stenographer was competent to testify as to the contents of the letter in question. Code of Washington Territory, 1881, § 392; Remington's Rev. Stats., Vol. 3, § 1214;Statev.Nelson,39 Wn. 221;Statev.Rasmussen,125 Wn. 176.
The Washington decisions are clearly in accord with the great weight of authority, whether the privilege bePage 11urged under the common-law rule or under modern statutes. Wigmore, Evidence, 2d ed., Vol. 5, §2336, pp. 89-90; § 2339, p. 98; § 2336, p. 77; Chamberlayne, Evidence, Vol. 5, pp. 5294-5296; Roscoe, Criminal Evidence, 13th ed., p. 104; Jones, Evidence, 2d ed., p. 920; Greenleaf, Evidence, 16th ed., p. 392; Phillips, Evidence, 5 Amer. ed. p. 64, note 4, pp. 65-66; annotation toNashv.Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.,106 W. Va. 672, appearing in 63 A.L.R. pp. 101, 108et seq., notes II and III; 28 R.C.L. p. 528. par. 117; 40 Cyc., pp. 2358, 2359. See alsoDickersonv.United States,65 F.2d 824, cert. den.,290 U.S. 665;United Statesv.Guiteau, 1 Mackey (D.C. Rep.) 498.
The basis of the Washington and other like decisions was well stated inStatev.Wilkins,72 Or. 77. See alsoPeoplev.Hayes,140 N.Y. 484.
As the tendency of the privilege is to prevent the full disclosure of the truth, it should be strictly construed.Lloydv.Pennie, 50 F. 4;Tutsonv.Holland,50 F.2d 338;O'Toolev.Ohio German Fire Ins. Co.,159 Mich. 187.
That the third person rule applies regardless of the intimacy of the relation between the person who acquires knowledge of a communication between a husband and wife and the spouse who makes the communication, finds ample demonstration in the cases.Hopkinsv.Grimshaw,165 U.S. 342;State Bankv.Hutchinson,62 Kan. 9;Nashv.Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.Co.,106 W. Va. 672;Insurance Co. v.Shoemaker,95 Tenn. 72;Commonwealthv.Everson,123 Ky. 330;Martinv.Martin,267 Mass. 157;Commonwealthv.Smith,270 Pa. 583;Drewv.Drew,250 Mass. 41;Statev.Young,97 N.J.L. 501.
The cases cited by petitioner which hold that the privilege between attorney and client extends to an attorney's clerks, secretaries, and stenographers are obviously not apposite. Wigmore, Evidence, Vol. 5, §2301.Page 12
Those decisions relied upon by petitioner which hold that a business man or merchant does not publish a libelous statement simply by dictating it to a stenographer are not in point. Theirratio decidendiwas clearly explained inOsbornv.Boulter(C.A. 1930), 2 K.B. 226, 236.
During the present term this Court has resolved conflicting views expressed in its earlier opinions by holding that the rules governing the competence of witnesses in criminal trials in the federal courts are not necessarily restricted to those local rules in force at the time of the admission into the Union of the particular state where the trial takes place, but are governed by common law principles as interpreted and applied by the federal courts in the light of reason and experience.Funkv.UnitedStates,290 U.S. 371. If any different rule with respect to the admissibility of testimony has been thought to apply in the federal courts, Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., §6; compareAlfordv.United States,282 U.S. 687, it is clear that itPage 13should be the same as that governing the competence of witnesses. So our decision here, in the absence of Congressional legislation on the subject, is to be controlled by common law principles, not by local statute.
The statement to which the witness was permitted to testify in the present case was a relevant admission by petitioner, probative of his guilty purpose or intent to commit the crime charged. It was therefore rightly received in evidence unless it should have been excluded because made in a communication to his wife.
The government insists that confidential communications between husband and wife are privileged only when the testimony offered is that of one of the spouses, and that the privilege does not exclude proof of communications between them, however confidential, by a witness who is neither the husband nor the wife. The question thus raised remains open in the federal courts.1But wePage 14find it unnecessary to answer it here, for in the view we take the challenged testimony to the communication by the husband to his wife is not within the privilege because of the voluntary disclosure by him to a third person, his stenographer.
The basis of the immunity given to communications between husband and wife is the protection of marital confidences, regarded as so essential to the preservation of the marriage relationship as to outweigh the disadvantages to the administration of justice which the privilege entails. SeeHammonsv.State,73 Ark. 495,500;84 S.W. 718;Sextonv.Sexton,129 Iowa 487,489, ff;105 N.W. 314;O'Toolev.OhioGerman Fire Ins. Co.,159 Mich. 187,192;123 N.W. 795; Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., §2336. Hence it is that the privilege with respect to communications extends to the testimony of husband or wife even though the different privilege, excluding the testimony of one against the other, is not involved. SeeGordon, RankinCo. v.Tweedy,71 Ala. 202,210;Wickesv.Walden,228 Ill. 56;81 N.E. 798;Southwickv.Southwick,49 N.Y. 510,519; Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., §§2227,2228,2332,2333.
Communications between the spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have been intended to be confidential, and hence they are privileged; but wherever a communication, because of its nature or the circumstances under which it was made, was obviously not intended to be confidential it is not a privileged communication. SeeCaldwellv.State,146 Ala. 141,143;41 So. 473;Parkhurstv.Berdell,110 N.Y. 386,393;18 N.E. 123;Truelschv.Miller,186 Wis. 239,249;202 N.W. 352. And, when made in the presence of a third party, such communications are usually regarded as not privileged because not made in confidence.Jacobsv.United States, 161 F. 694;Cocroftv.Cocroft,158 Ga. 714;Page 15124 S.E. 346; cf.Linnellv.Linnell,249 Mass. 51,143 N.E. 813, withFreemanv.Freeman,238 Mass. 150;130 N.E. 220.
Here it is suggested that the voluntary disclosure to the stenographer negatives the confidential character of the communication. Cf.Statev.Young,97 N.J.L. 501;117 A. 713. But we do not think the question which we have to determine is one of fact whether the petitioner's letter to his wife was intended to be confidential. We may take it that communications between husband and wife may sometimes be made in confidence even though in the presence of a third person, seeRobinv.King, 2 Leigh (Va.) 140, 144; and that would seem especially to be the case where the communication is made in the presence of or through the aid of a private secretary or stenographer whose duties, in common experience, are confidential. Cf.Edmondsonv.Birch Co., [1907] 1 K.B. 371, 382. Accordingly the question with which we are now concerned is the extent to which the privilege which the law concedes to communications made confidentially between the husband and wife embraces the transmission of them, likewise in confidence, through a third party intermediary, communications with whom are not themselves protected by any privilege. Cf.Drewv.Drew,250 Mass. 41;144 N.E. 763.
Petitioner invokes the authority of those cases where the privilege granted to communications between attorney and client has been held to exclude proof of the communication by the testimony of a clerk present when it was made, seeSibleyv.Waffle,16 N.Y. 180,183;Wartellv.Novograd,48 R.I. 296,301;137 A. 776;Taylorv.Forster, 2 C. P. 195; cf.Statev.Brown, 2 Marv. (Del.) 380, 397;36 A. 458, and of those where the statutory privilege extended to the information gained by a physician from consultation with his patient has been deemed to exclude, by implication, proof of the condition of thePage 16patient by testimony of a nurse who attended the consultation. SeeCulverv.Union Pacific R. Co.,112 Neb. 441,450;199 N.W. 794; cf.Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.Owen,111 Ark. 554;164 S.W. 720. It is said that the stenographer here similarly stood in a confidential relationship to the petitioner and that the communication to her of the contents of petitioner's letter to his wife should, on grounds both of reason and convenience, be protected by the privilege which the law extends to confidential communications privately made between husband and wife.
We may assume for present purposes that where it is the policy of the law to throw its protection around knowledge gained or statements made in confidence, it will find a way to make that protection effective by bringing within its scope the testimony of those whose participation in the confidence is reasonably required. It may be that it would be of little worth to forbid the disclosure of information gained by a physician from the examination or consultation of his patient, if the nurse, necessarily present, could reveal it. SeeCulverv.UnionPacific R. Co., supra; Mississippi Power Light Co. v.Jordan,164 Miss. 174;143 So. 483. It may plausibly be urged that the privilege of attorney and client would be as often defeated as preserved if it did not draw within its sweep the testimony of clerks in the lawyer's office. SeeSibleyv.Waffle, supra.
But it is unnecessary now to determine the latitude which may rightly be given to the privilege which the law confers upon either of these relationships, for no considerations such as those suggested apply to material communications under conditions disclosed here. Normally husband and wife may conveniently communicate without stenographic aid and the privilege of holding their confidences immune from proof in court may be reasonably enjoyed and preserved without embracing within it thePage 17testimony of third persons to whom such communications have been voluntarily revealed. The uniform ruling that communications between husband and wife, voluntarily made in the presence of their children, old enough to comprehend them, or other members of the family within the intimacy of the family circle, are not privileged,Linnellv.Linnell,249 Mass. 51;143 N.E. 813;Cowserv.State,70 Tex.Crim. 265;157 S.W. 758;Fullerv.Fuller,100 W. Va. 309;130 S.E. 270, is persuasive that communications like the present, even though made in confidence, are not to be protected. The privilege suppresses relevant testimony and should be allowed only when it is plain that marital confidence can not otherwise reasonably be preserved. Nothing in this case suggests any such necessity.
We do not intimate whether in the present circumstances the wife's testimony, not offered against her husband, would likewise be freed of the restriction. Cf.Nashv.Fidelity-Phenix FireIns. Co.,106 W. Va. 672;146 S.E. 726.Affirmed.
- Page 13 Mr. Justice Miller, sitting as Circuit Justice, excluded evidence of confidential communications in a letter written by the husband to his wife, found by the latter's administrator among her papers, although proved by a third party witness.Bowmanv.Patrick, 32 F. 368; cf.Lloydv.Pennie, 50 F. 4. A like decision was reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, inNew York Life Ins. Co. v.Ross,30 F.2d 80. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit made the same ruling with respect to a communication between an attorney and client inLiggettv.Glenn, 51 F. 381, and a district court reached a similar conclusion with respect to communications between physician and patient inDreierv.Continental LifeIns. Co., 24 F. 670. Compare a dictum inHopkinsv.Grimshaw,165 U.S. 342,351. It seems that many state courts rule that a communication between husband and wife, however confidential, may be proved by the testimony of a third person who has acquired knowledge of it, even though without the assent of the spouse making the communication, at least where the spouse to whom the communication was made is not responsible for the disclosure.Hammonsv.State,73 Ark. 495;84 S.W. 718;Wilkersonv.State,91 Ga. 729;17 S.E. 990;O'Toolev.Ohio German Fire Ins. Co.,159 Mich. 187;123 N.W. 795;Statev.Wallace,162 N.C. 622;78 S.E. 1; cf.Peoplev.Hayes,140 N.Y. 484;35 N.E. 951. ↩