Domestic relations cases; invocation of constitutional rights. (HB1663)
Introduced By
Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
☐ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Constitutional rights; invocation in domestic relations cases. Provides that the invocation of a constitutional right in a civil action brought under Title 20 may be used against the party invoking this right. The effect will be to revive the application of the "sword and shield" doctrine in civil actions brought under Title 20. Currently, parties in divorce cases are able to invoke their right against self-incrimination, typically in response to allegations of adultery, without an adverse inference being drawn against them. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 12/05/2006 | Committee |
| 12/05/2006 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07 070013396 |
| 12/05/2006 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/11/2007 | Assigned Courts sub: Civil Law |
Comments
This is a terrible idea. Picking and choosing between the portions of the constitution that we're going to recognize in Virginia is staggering in its foolishness.
Gotta love it. He's really going to defend the sanctity of marriage and prosecute any adulterers he can.
I'm not sure what Title 20 is, so I'm a little confused, but this doesn't even specify self-incrimination, does it? We're talking /any/ constitutional right. ???
Title 20 is the Virginia code section dealing with marriage and divorce. In divorce litigation spouses accused of adultery have often resorted to invoking the 5th amendment to avoid testifying about their relationship. Given the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, many judges in Virginia are actually beginning to compel the answer because Lawrence pretty much makes it impossible to ever prosecute anyone criminally for adultery again. Even where a judge recognizes the right to invoke the 5th, opposing counsel would like to have the right to argue to the court that the invocation should be taken as an admission of adultery. Frankly, the whole issue could be rendered moot if this state would decriminalize adultery instead, but we can't do anything as sensible as that.
Oh no, we can't decriminalize adultery. We have to protect marriage.
Catzmaw, you took the words right out of my mouth. Govt intrusion in our personal sex lives, by criminalizing adultery, just goes and mucks up the civil matters.
And love is a civil matter. By which I mean that divorce is a civil matter, and the criminal code should keep its hands off.
Now, as far as this particular bill goes, it's a terrible idea. Invoking a constitutional right must never be incriminatory, and the legislature is not empowered to interpret the constitution. That's two horrible precedents to set.