I Do (Have to Testify)

Robert Wilonsky June 19, 2006 2:45PM

[
          {
            "name": "Related Stories / Support Us Combo",
            "component": "12047914",
            "insertPoint": "4",
            "requiredCountToDisplay": "6"
          },{
            "name": "Air - Billboard - Inline Content",
            "component": "12047910",
            "insertPoint": "2/3",
            "requiredCountToDisplay": "7"
          },
          
          {
            "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2",
            "component": "12047911",
            "insertPoint": "12",
            "requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
          },{
            "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2",
            "component": "12047911",
            "insertPoint": "4th",
            "startingPoint": "16",
            "requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
          }
          
            ,{
              "name": "RevContent - In Article",
              "component": "13033296",
              "insertPoint": "3/5",
              "requiredCountToDisplay": "5"
            }
          
        ]

After posting the note below about the impending Don Hill-Sheila Farrington nuptials, we received several e-mails asking the very same thing Unfair Park's been wondering since first learning of the happy couple's news last week: Should a federal grand jury actually indict the mayor pro tem or his former consultant in the FBI's ongoing corruption investigation, which celebrates its one-year anniversary tomorrow (how time crawls), would they have to testify against one another in front of a grand jury? While no one will comment from the U.S. Attorney's office--because it's an ongoing investigation, ya know, and can't even confirm there is one--Lori Bailey, spokesperson for the Dallas FBI field office, says the husband-wife "privilege is, I believe, not retroactive."

She's speaking generally, of course; danged if you'll get anyone at the FBI to comment on the investigation, which began (publicly, at least) with the June 20, 2005, raid on Hill's City Hall offices and BMW, which belonged to Farrington (maybe a dowry of some kind?). But, Bailey says, "I do not believe [the privilege] occurs when there is not a marital relationship there" before a potential crime is committed and a formal investigation commences. At the state court level, the Texas Rules of Evidence certainly bear this out: Rule 504 offers two exceptions to the husband-wife privilege, one of which says a person's spouse can be called to the witness stand to testify about "matters occurring prior to the marriage." And while we're trying to figure out what to get Farrington and Hill as a wedding gift, what do you get a criminal investigation for its one-year anniversary, which is the "paper" anniversary? Gosh, hope it's not an indictment! --Robert Wilonsky

KEEP THE DALLAS OBSERVER FREE... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.

Make a one-time donation today for as little as $1.

Robert Wilonsky

Contact: Robert Wilonsky

Trending News

Latest Stories

Keep Scrolling or Click to Read:

I Do (Have to Testify)

Trending News

[%title%]

Latest Stories

This Week's Issue