Defendant Buddy Rich was convicted of lying on a law school educational loan application. He hid assets from the government, in order to obtain thousands of extra dollars during law school, and subsequently lived like a king in a palace while his classmates struggled to study in cockroach-infested hovels. In a civil suit Buddy was required by the plaintiff to pay back $100,000, but the plaintiff has only collected a fraction of that amount. The plaintiff suspects Buddy is again hiding assets, and serves interrogatories on Buddy’s wife, Penelope Rich. Penelope asserts the marital privilege in refusing to answer. What will the court do?

Require Penelope to answer if she did not invoke the privilege during Buddy’s criminal trial.
Allow Penelope to invoke the marital privilege and refuse to answer.
Find that Buddy and not Penelope is the holder of the privilege, and thus deny Penelope the privilege not to answer.
Find that Penelope may not invoke the privilege if she is using it to defraud the plaintiff.

Doctor Cartair examines a patient, Chuck Mansohn, in the emergency room at a Chicago hospital for a sprained leg. Cartair tells Mansohn that Mansohn will have to remain in bed for a few days while Mansohn’s leg heals. Mansohn says he can’t stay in bed – he has to meet his friend Mary on Tuesday at the bank. Mansohn subsequently is arrested that Tuesday in connection with a bank robbery reportedly committed with Mary faithfully by his side. Cartair is called at a trial to give testimony regarding what Mansohn said to him in the emergency room a few days prior to the robbery. Upon objection by Mansohn’s attorney, a court will rule the testimony is:

Admissible, if a nurse was present when Mansohn told Cartair about his meeting with Mary.
Admissible, because Mansohn’s statements had nothing to do with his treatment.
Inadmissible, under the patient-physician privilege.
Admissible, because the statements were not confidential.

A disgusted onlooker saw Winona steal from a department store. Winona shoved expensive bars of designer soap down her pants and tried to hide a bottle of perfume in a small handbag. Winona was caught when the bottle top broke off in the handbag and the perfume spread all over her and her clothes. The witness told a store representative, who in turn told a security guard, who apprehended Winona and called the police. Winona was put on trial for shoplifting, and her defense was that she intended to pay for the items. Winona’s estranged husband was willing to testify against her. He was going to state that Winona confided in him, after he bailed her out of prison, that Winona really did try to steal the items. Winona’s attorney objects on privilege grounds. The judge will hold the testimony to be:

Admissible because it is not privileged.
Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant.
Inadmissible, because it is privileged.
None of the above.

Muddy Bathwaters, a famous bluesman, is on trial in federal court in Manhattan for conspiring to defraud B.B. King’s club in Times Square. At Muddy’s trial, the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the case calls Muddy’s wife to the stand to testify as to what she heard Muddy say to a friend who worked at B.B. King’s club and who is also on trial as a co-conspirator of Muddy’s. May Muddy’s wife testify as to what she heard Muddy say?

Yes, because a spouse may testify against the other spouse in federal court, regardless of whether the defendant spouse consents.
No, because Muddy is the holder of a privilege and he has the right to invoke it.
No, so long as Muddy and his wife are still married.
None of the above.

Again, famous bluesman Muddy Bathwaters is on trial in federal court in Manhattan for conspiring to defraud B.B. King’s club in Times Square. At Muddy’s trial, the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the case calls Muddy’s wife to the stand to testify as to what Muddy said to her about his business with B.B. King’s club. May Muddy’s wife testify as to what she heard Muddy say?

Yes, because in federal court the choice as to whether or not to testify is Muddy’s wife’s to make.
No, because Muddy is the holder of the privilege and is entitled to invoke it.
No, because Muddy is on trial for a criminal offense.
None of the above.