Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Law & Order (1990)
1 corrected entry in season 13
Factual error: While discussing the death of a car accident victim with detectives, the pathologist Dr Elizabeth Rodgers takes out a french fry, seasons it with mayonnaise and eats it. She is in the morgue, wearing bloodstained scrubs. Nobody ever eats or drinks in a morgue. This is not a character error; eating and drinking in a sterile laboratory environment is absolutely forbidden and this is taught to medical and science students from day one of their degree courses. In fact she would not even have food in there in the first place.
Det. Lennie Briscoe: Even though you are a taxpayer, you know, we don't actually work for you personally.
Trivia: Both Jerry Orbach (Det. Lennie Briscoe) and S. Epatha Merkerson (Lt. Van Buren) played guest roles before joining the cast. Orbach played a lawyer in the episode "The Wages of Love" in season two, and Merkerson played the mother of a victim in "Mushrooms" in the first season.
Question: Why did Arthur fire Serena?
Answer: He believed that she had become too empathetic towards the defendant they had been prosecuting, and that her actions were driven by her emotions instead of facts. While empathy is a good quality in general, a certain degree of detachment is required in order for a prosecutor to do one's job effectively.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR ยง4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
LorgSkyegon
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
KeyZOid
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
Bishop73
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
KeyZOid
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
KeyZOid
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Bishop73
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
KeyZOid
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
KeyZOid