i dont remember if snipes character was divorced when she was ready to snitch on snipes, but at the time of the incident
shareThey can't be *forced* to do so (generally speaking -- it's not as simple as that.) They most certainly can do so voluntarily. Be hard to prosecute domestic assault cases, for instance, if spouses can't testify against each other.
shareAt the time of the incident he was still married to her and she was pregnant with Zelda.
I thought the ex wife was a glaring loose string in this story. You don't even get word one from her till her threat on the phone. But she was seen on the Gizmo at the Nakamoto Party. Beyond those two instances, there are no connection to her and Nakamoto. She is a lawyer, but you are not directly told she represents Nakamoto... You don't see her at the conference at the end, nor there is no resolution between Webb and her.
I think her part in this is very weak and all in all if her part was deleted completely the fabric of the movie probably wouldn't suffer in the slightest.
Exes often do accuse and even testify against each other during child custody disputes, even to the point of accusing each other of past alleged crimes that happened during the marriage.
shareI've never heard of that. What law are you referring to? It's certainly not in the Constitution.
What does have a wife in court against her husband have to do with the movie?
I don't think this movie had anything to do about Snipes' character being divorced or otherwise.
It comes from what's known as case law, which are laws that are set by precedent that a judge rules in previous cases. It's known as "spousal privilege."
In this case it's an extension of the 5th amendment.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Thanx for explaining some, although I don't fully understand, nor agree (it can be anti-freedom).
I'm guessing that you have a JD or are studying towards it. You might even be practicing. Stop the practice! Get it right the first time!
There are particular things that I noticed in your comment.
"Precedent" -- too many new "rules" are made by that. The Constitution is way morphed into many fewer rights. It's kinda like the telephone game.
I didn't know this, but you identified a new "rule" (spousal privilege) as an "an extension of the 5th amendment." I have not heard any expansion/corruption of the Constitution explained with its "base," but your referral to a particular part is the most accurate description of its source that I have read.
The terms "general welfare" & "interstate commerce" don't count. There are many mis-used & exaggerated uses.