Evidentiary privileges purport to safeguard
interests and relationships. They arise
from the rules of evidence and can bar certain pieces of evidence from being
used in a trial or other judicial proceedings.
The most common and well-known privilege is the attorney-client privilege
where an attorney cannot testify to the relationship between him and his
client, encouraging an open and honest dialogue with clients and their
attorneys. Another example of these
privileges is the marital privilege where, in the interest of keeping the
marriage tranquil and conflict-free, a husband cannot testify against his wife
and vice versa (although the intricacies of how exactly this works varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction). In
general, these privileges can help defendants exclude evidence arising from
relationships where society has deemed communications to be private. Understandably, these forms of evidence
should be excluded at judicial proceedings, but what happens in a jurisdiction where
these privileges exclude evidence that could help, or even exculpate, a defendant? Doesn’t that defendant have the right to a
fair trial and due process under the Sixth Amendment? Can privileges created
under evidentiary rules really circumvent a defendant’s constitutional rights?
