I recall in an episode of The Sopranos, Adriana consulting with a private detective or a law clerk to find out if that was still a valid argument, if the government had found a way around that. She was told that in some instances she could be forced to testify.

It's just a tv show but I wonder if there was any truth to his answer.

Well, if the government could show (not necessarily prove) that the info possessed by the wife was not exclusive to the wife or that she furthered a criminal enterprise, she could lose the wife's defense.

That's what I figured Olivant, I was just hoping to hear an example from one of our fine lawyers here on the BB.

Wait a minute. "Fine" lawyer? Isn't that kind of like "good" devil?

Another oxymoron!

What follows ten lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

What ?

Applause.

Yes, its called the "crime-fraud" exception to privilege. It also applies to lawyers, doctors and spouses, and possibly even clergy. If the person claiming privilege has been told that a crime is going to happen or if he or she is furthering a crime or a fraud then there is no privilege which attaches. The confession of a past crime , however is privileged. Enev so in many jurisdictions there have been statutory exceptions made, especially in the area of sexual abuse of children. In my territory, for instance, it is a CRIME not to report an admiossion of such child abuse to the authorities regardless of who you are.

As for those who would applaud lawyers on the bottom of the ocean, just wait till you need one

Thanks DT, I was hoping for an answer from you.

Florida's got some of the strictest domestic abuse policies in the country also, don't they ? Boy, it just doesn't pay to get married down there. Just kidding.

BTW - Your territory ? I always use that expression. It's my ode to Sal Tessio.

LOL mine too, but is also to Vito who, in his opening remarks to the commission, when he makes the peace, thanks all the other associates who have come from "California and Kansas City and all the other TERRITORIES of this country."

I think that, if given a choice, Tom would have disassociated himself with the Corleones after he saw how Michael was running the show.

Tom's dedication, loyalty (and yes, love) was to Vito, and possibly to Santino, had he lived on as Don. Tom never signed on for Michael, who was so different from Vito and Santino.

Can you imagine how Tom felt, after Vito died, having to be humble and in fear of your life under the bloody reign of Michael?

Santino may have been "a bad Don, rest in peace," but he knew just as much as Michael did - he knew the heads of the Five Families had to be killed (this is mentioned specifically in the book, but even in the film Santino says to Tom: "I'm going to end it be killing that old bastard..." - meaning Taltallia). Santino had heart, Michael lacked heart - Vito was heart, and it was the heart that drew Tom to the fold. Tom was already a lawyer before he started to work for Vito and the Corleone Family, and it was Tom's choice to climb aboard - it was Vito he signed on for, but I suppose he should have known that Vito wouldn't have lived forever, and that sons usually fuck things up - whether it be a mob family, or any family-owned business.

Nobody thinks and works like Poppa.