The Marriage Defense
A lawyer attempts to delay a murder trial by arguing that the defendant is still legally married to the state's star witness.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Dan K. Murphy, one of the attorneys engaged to defend Martin V. Leasia, the murderer, has filed a notice of appeal to the supreme court from the decision by Judge Sears, of May 18, granting to Mrs. Pauline Leasia a decree of divorce. On the ground that pending the action of the supreme court on the appeal the murderer and his wife are still bound together in the relation of man and wife, Mr. Murphy expects to be able to debar Mrs. Leasia from offering testimony against the slayer of her father. 'On the appeal taken,' said Mr. Murphy, 'the case will have to be tried over again by the supreme court, and until this is done it appears to me that the court before which Leasia is tried will have to hold them to be still related as man and wife.' The climax of the whole proceeding will be reached when the case comes to trial and Mrs. Leasia is called as a witness. Here his attorney will raise an objection on the ground set forth, and the battle will be fought out on legal lines.
“Mrs. Leasia cannot appear and testify against him without his consent. That he will not give this goes without saying.”
This legal maneuvering highlights the historical 'spousal immunity' privilege, where spouses could not testify against each other—a doctrine that has been significantly modified in modern courts, though the strategic use of divorce proceedings to influence criminal outcomes remains a rare but calculated legal tactic.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.