This week, Judge Mary Dimke of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an interesting ruling. In United States v. Bolen, she rejected spousal immunity in a criminal case where she believed the couple got hitched for evidentiary rather than romantic reasons.
Spousal immunity has long been a thing of legend in the courts and cinema. In Arrested Development, you had the prototypical scene:
“Michael: Why didn’t you just put me in charge?
George Sr.: Michael, listen to me! These guys, the SEC, they have been after me for years. If I had put you in charge, you would be wearing one of these orange jumpsuits too.
Michael: I could have helped you—
George Sr.: You’d be an accomplice! No. It had to be your mom. [conspiratorial whisper] They cannot arrest a husband and wife for the same crime! [winks at Michael]
Michael: …Yeah, I don’t think that that’s true, Dad.
George Sr.: Really? [facepalms] …I have the worst f[bleep]ing attorneys.”
In reality, there are exceptions as in cases where the two spouses are adverse parties. However, as shown in Bolen, the court can reject the privilege if it believes the marriage is a sham.
Judge Dimke noted that the inquiry into an alleged sham often looks at the timing of the marriage in proximity to the case. In this case, the timing was a bit too perfect for the court’s taste. Here is how the court laid out the facts:
“Defendant Greer and MacGregor began dating in July 2015 and quickly moved in together because MacGregor had been homeless. Defendant Greer was arrested and detained on state charges, which form the basis for these federal charges, on January 15, 2022. MacGregor was interviewed by law enforcement shortly after Defendant Greer’s arrest and made several incriminating statements about him.
On January 22, 2022, in a recorded jail phone call, Defendant Greer told MacGregor she needed to eat in order to keep up her strength because she is “going to be working [herself] to the bone” to get him “out”; she responded by inquiring how much a marriage license costs.
While the state case was pending, Defendant Greer and MacGregor repeatedly discussed the need to get married, the need for the prosecutor to be informed of the marriage, and the urgency for the marriage to occur. For example, on April 2, 2022, Defendant Greer, believing he received confirmation that they can marry, stated “the sooner [it occurs] the better.”
On April 5, 2022, which appears to be the day a pretrial conference was held in his state case, Defendant Greer and MacGregor engaged in the following conversation:
Defendant Greer: I was calling to let you know I just got the response from the marriage coordinator and of course the prosecutor denied it, claiming you were a state’s witness. I have to wait for the paperwork from the law library so that I can resubmit the application. . . . I can resubmit it stating you cannot be a state’s witness.
MacGregor: Okay and then she will have no choice but to let us get married?
Defendant Greer: Yeah, pretty much. . . . I might have to talk to my attorney about it first.
MacGregor: Why would you have to talk to your attorney about it?
Defendant Greer: So that he can inform the prosecutor.
Defendant Greer and MacGregor married, over a recorded jail call, on May 8, 2022. His state trial was scheduled to begin June 13, 2022. “
The court found that:
“On the surface, the timing of the marriage is inherently suspect. After roughly six-and-a-half years together, Defendant Greer and MacGregor engaged in an effort to marry and eventually married only after Defendant Greer’s arrest on January 15, 2022, and after MacGregor made incriminating statements about Defendant Greer to law enforcement. {Notably, MacGregor did not testify as to any demonstrated intent to marry prior to Defendant Greer’s arrest.}
Following Defendant Greer’s arrest, recorded jail calls indicate Defendant Greer’s apparent newfound preoccupation with getting married and MacGregor’s apparent desperation to mitigate the potential legal damage of incriminating statements she made about Defendant Greer to law enforcement. Seven days after his arrest, Defendant Greer told MacGregor she needs to keep up her strength because of how hard she will have to work to get him out of custody. She responded by asking how much a marriage license costs. While the timing of the marriage is “only one” of the factors the Court must assess, the totality of the evidence, as discussed below, strongly weighs in favor of finding the marriage was designed for the purpose of MacGregor avoiding having to testify.”
The court details how Greer bad-mouthed MacGregor to a friend about her “bitching” and how she is a “little psycho.” The court notes that all marriages can have such moments and notes that courts are reluctant to judge the content or compatibility of a marriage. United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239, 1243 (6th Cir. 1985) (“We do not believe that courts can or should ‘assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.’”); United States v. Ingersoll, 2015 WL 5968750, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2015) (“The testimonial privilege applies with equal force to challenged marriages as it does to model marriages.”).
However, it still finds that the marriage was not made in heaven but in a holding cell and:
finds only that, based in part on the text messages referenced above, Defendant Greer did not have a bona fide intention to marry MacGregor prior to his arrest. Looking only to Defendant Greer’s motive, the messages in the record plainly suggest that “the purpose of the marriage was for the purpose of invoking the marital privilege.”…The calls reflect that, to Defendant Greer, the marriage was inexorably linked with his prosecution: Defendant Greer repeatedly was preoccupied with making sure the state prosecutor was aware of it. As with the text messages, the calls plainly suggest that “the purpose of the marriage was for the purpose of invoking the marital privilege.” …
The Court finds MacGregor’s testimony decidedly not credible. She repeatedly invoked equivocal phrases—such as variations of “I do not recall” and “I do not remember”—at least ten times on cross-examination. In the Court’s view, it was implausible for MacGregor not to remember details and conversations that were unambiguously memorable, based on the content of her calls with Defendant Greer….
The Court does not take lightly the task of assessing whether a marriage was entered into in good faith or for the purpose of wielding it as a shield in a criminal prosecution. However, the totality of the evidence compels the conclusion that Defendant Greer and MacGregor’s marriage was “for the purpose of using the marriage ceremony in a scheme to defraud[.]” …
That could put a damper on Hollywood scripts about the “loophole” of spousal immunity:
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
A Judge should not believe what everyone else is incapable of believing. That applies to everything else.
J
Jehzsa
Only the people who are right should have any physical might.
Hillary and Bill better watch out!
… marriage was “for the purpose of using the marriage ceremony in a scheme to defraud[.]” …
I cherish my marriage more than my own life. Marriage is best summarized in a quote from the Old Testament, that I had read at our wedding ceremony:
Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil.
For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up.
Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone?
And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken
– Ecclesiastes 4: 9-12
The threefold cord are the two spouses and God.
American writer Jack London wrote:
“The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.
Man’s purpose is to live and not waste it away with meaningless pursuits. Marriage is a meaningful pursuit that pays off > ten-fold. May Americans turn the corner this New Year of 2025, and find purpose in their lives and relationships with others, with passion, vigor and a sense of vocation.
Louis Armstrong:
Trump should arm Ukraine to the teeth to invade Moscow, so as to avenge his spouse, Melania, for the nude photos.
In immigration law it’s called marriage FRAUD. Here, credit the federal District Court judge who found a fraud had been committed on the judicial system.
MacGregor made incriminating statements about Defendant Greer to law enforcement.
============
If this were indeed the actual standard on which to base a denial of privilege then NO SPOUSE would ever receive the privilege….Because every spouse/BF/GF has made this or similar type comments somewhere in a relationship. If the Appellate Court disagrees the entire case is 100% obliterated. I agree with the Sims case:
“United States v. Sims, 755 F.2d 1239, 1243 (6th Cir. 1985) “We do not believe that courts can or should ‘assess the social worthiness of particular marriages or the need of particular marriages for the protection of the privilege.”
Every spouse/BF/GF has made incriminating statements somewhere in a relationship?! That’s obvious BS. I wonder whether you know what the word “incriminating” means.
Anonymous: that case you cited is what I’ve always understood to be the state of the law–that a court cannot look into motives for a couple deciding to marry. As I recall, this issue came up with Anna Nicole Smith’s marriage to J. Howard Marshall.
FACT OR FICTION?
Immediately after being indicted in Boardwalk Empire circa 1923, “Nucky” married cohabiting Margaret, which abruptly terminated his prosecution.
Fiction, no one’s name is nucky
Enoch Malachi “Nucky” Thompson, Sr., but what about the prosecution instantly vaporizing after the marriage circa 1923, plausible?
Jonathan: “Spousal immunity” is not particularly a hot topic these days. What IS a hot topic is the civil war going on inside the GOP this week.
The knives are out in the extreme right wing of the MAGA crowd in the House. They are mad at Speaker Mike Johnson for joining with the Dems in passing the CR to fund the government. Johnson may even lose his job. And the House is sharply divided over immigration policy. The extreme element of MAGA is opposed to HIB visas. On the other side is Elon Musk who supports H1B visas because he depends on qualified foreign engineers to help run his companies. In several posts Musk said “hateful, unrepentant racists” in the GOP should be removed ‘root and stem”. Strange rhetoric coming from a guy who promotes racism on X and supports the racist, neo-fascist ideology of the AfD party in Germany that wants to expel all immigrants from the country. Oh well, when it comes to protecting his own economic interests Musk frequently speaks out of both sides of his mouth!
Then, we have Steven Miller, the racist advisor to DJT in the first term. He will be back this time as DJT’s deputy chief of staff. His full time job this time will be helping expel all immigrants. And Miller has not even assumed his new WH position and just sent a threatening letter to officials in California, including AG Rob Bouta. Miller said in his letter:
“As Attorney General, on December 4,2024, you stated that the State of California will not enforce federal immigration laws, encouraging defiance by all California jurisdictions…this rhetoric illustrates the State’s intent to blatantly violate federal law. Such lawlessness subjects you and your subordinates to significant risk of criminal and civil liability…”
In his haste to threaten California Miller forgets an essential ingredient. State officials are not required to assist in the removal of undocumented immigrants. They can’t interfere with deportations but they are not required by law to assist ICE in the removal of immigrants. Immigration policy is strictly a federal responsibility. If Miller thinks he can charge state officials with crimes or bring civil charges he is barking up the wrong tree and he will lose in court. Miller has already lost his mind and he is not even back in the WH!
dennis, go feed your fish.
Come back when you can stay on topic or at least close to shore.
I may start a referendum to have you minimized or removed.
@Anonymous
They spend so much time here being contrarian for its own sake (or possibly for $$$) I’m pretty sure the fish are dead by now, so are the houseplants. 🤷🏻♂️
Dennis, I had to laugh at your daft characterization of Elon Musk! Your statement that he wants foreign applicants is an undeniable indictment of the Democratic control of our education system where matriculation to advanced basket weaving is the highest goal. Regarding X and your statement, do you really think that speech should be monitored; I hardly believe that since you are capable to say as you please here on Professor Turley’s blog.
Dennis, I am interested in the topics and opinions that Jonathan Hurley brings to his readers, not your endless leftist nonsense.
Stick to the topic of the e-letter. If you don’t realize, thinking people just scroll thro your nonsensical post and think … TDS strikes again.
Pathetic, as usual
Are house republicans unanimous on every issue of policy ? No.
Who would expect them to ?
Nor do I expect Democrats to be unified on every issue of policy.
I do not personally think Speaker Johnson is in serious trouble – not that he has not pissed off some members of the freedom caucus, but because there is no alternative that can get the necessary votes.
Personally I do not think Johnson should have caved on the CR.
I think that House Republicans should have shut government down if they could not get some spending CUTS in the CR.
But the FACT that I think house republicans and Johnson in particular caved means that this is the end of the world or that Johnson should be removed as speaker.
Immigration and immigration reform is going to be a hot topic over the next 2 years.
Again PERSONALLY, I support allowing between 2-3 Million LEGAL immigrants into the US per year,
If and ONLY If we can shutdown illegal immigration.
While I do not have an axe to grind with H1B Visa’s generally I would prefer more liberal immigration policy without Specific carveouts for skilled workers.
In fact I would likely keep Asylum extremely limited. Get rid of all work related VISA’s Get Rid of the immigration lottery, and reuire immigrants to ALL be sponsored, and Sponsorship to be MEANINGFUL.
Any Citizen or US organization – businesses churches, civic groups, charities can sponsor any immigrant from anywhere.
But if they do so THEY are responsible for assuring that Immigrant does not become dependent on the state.
But i am not going to get what you want.
Musk may or may not get what he wants.
Trump is actually on the record that he wants MORE legal immigrants. But you would not know that from the MSM
Regardless, Trump may not get what he wants.
And that is OK. That is how our system of government works.
Republicans control the house and the senate (and the WH).
They control the legislative agenda.
Republicans are not going to be in universal agreement with each other.
When that happens they can compromise with each other, stick with the status quo, or pass something with votes from the other party.
And the House republicans as a whole can decide if they are ready to Toss the Speaker if they are not happy.
I do not expect that to happen.
But if it does
c’est la vie
No one is expelling all immigrants.
In fact no one is expelling all Illegal immigrants.
Trump/Homan’s committment is to deport those illegal immigrants that came during Biden’s term.
Trump has already said that the “dreamers” are not being deported.
People are not racist because they oppose illegal immigration.
They are also not racist because they favor free speech – even that of racists.
While I do not endorse the afd, they are anti-immigration and anti muslim, essentially Germany for Germans, and Euroskeptic.
You can agree or disagree with those views, but that does not inherently make them racist.
Except that they are probably a bit more Hardline than Reform in the UK and less socialist than France’s national rally,
They are not all that different from the political parties that are taking over all over Europe.
Labor in the UK will be oblitterated at the next election – Torries are polling at 26%, Reform at 24% and Labor at 20%.
If an election were held in Canada right now – Trudeau’s liberal party would be lucky to win 3 seats.
Albanese in AU is unlikely to win the next election – he has bidenesque economic problems.
Meloni is prime minister of Italy and is popular – despite being called “far right” by those like you.
God only knows what epitaphs you would spray at Milei.
Populist political parties – particularly Euroskeptic and particularly those opposed to the EU immigration policies that have been forced on them are growing in popularity throughout Europe.
This does not as idiots like you claim mean the return of the Nazi’s
Le Penn’s National Rally is decidedly SOCIALIST, it is also opposed to EU immigration policies and otherwise Euroskeptic.
It is likely that outside of policies on Immigration ad the EU that National Rallies politics are STRONGLY aligned with YOURS.
Musk does not promote racism, AfD is not racist, and neither is Stephen Miller. Nor do either of them want to expel all immigrants; only the illegal ones, whose presence is illegal. How can anyone be against that?
It is true, however, that states and their subdivisions have the undisputed constitutional right to refuse to assist federal law enforcement, and they cannot be punished for it. If Miller doesn’t know that, he’ll soon find out.
You are correct that States are not required to cooperate with the Federal government on immigration.
But they ARE obligated to refrain from actively interfering with the enforcement of actual immigration law.
And Homan has correctly noted that shifting from refusing to cooperate to actively interfering will get you arrested, jailed and convicted.
But I doubt it will come to that.
The exact extent that the federal government can condition federal funds on assisting with enforcement of immigration laws is not clear.
Roberts decision striking the parts of PPACA that forced Medicare expansion on states suggests that there ARE limits on the federal governments ability to use funding to force assistance with immigration law.
Regardless, Trump can easily cut the FEMA funds for illegal immigrants – that was 152B in 2024.
He likely can limit fderal welfare and medicare and other entitlement funding to citizens and legal immigrants.
But the most important Weapon that Trump has is Reality.
There will be another Laken Rielly murder or the Guatamalen illegal immigrant who pour gasoline on a woman and burned her to death in NYC recently.
Democrats can “resist” Trump/Homan and find themselves REPEATEDLY on the news in a very bad light.
Several major polls have approx. 56% of americans wanting MASS DEPORTATION of illegal immigrants.
If Democrat mayors really want to be on the wrong side of the electorate.
If Democrats wish to brig back the Portland Riots
or other highly unpopular moves the made in 2020 – I say GO FOR IT.
Turn San Francisco Red,
It is a wonderful thing that the Trump administration is going to end illegal immigration and wants to send illegal immigrants back to their home countries. Those who leave voluntarily might be able to return. Those who do not should be permanently expelled from ever setting foot in the US.
It is great to have an administration that cares about the American people.
Then, we have Steven Miller, the racist advisor to DJT in the first term. He will be back this time as DJT’s deputy chief of staff. His full time job this time will be helping expel all immigrants.
How many tells can there possibly be in Dennis McIntyre’s carefully (but ineptly) scripted sophomoric lies? There’s three right there, in three successive sentences.
1. Illegal Aliens are NOT “immigrants”. Every single immigrant in America came in through an authorized port of entry; doing so with an approved permanent resident visa in their hands to show that they had been approved by the government to live and work here. The legal term ‘Illegal Aliens’ that is used by SCOTUS is a name for a class of criminals that Dennis pretends does not exist.
2. There is no Trump policy to expel all immigrants. As legal permanent residents of America until they have been here 3-5 years to apply for citizenship, their residency here is protected as long as they remain law abiding citizens under the terms of their immigration visa.
2. Dennis does not actually care about racism, or perhaps (to be charitable) he doesn’t recognize what it looks like.
He has vigorously defended Biden, who he must know started his career by saying he didn’t want jungle bunnies going to the same schools his son Hunter would be going to.
He didn’t scream ‘racism’ when Biden said he never met a single clean, decent, well spoken black American in 40+ years in Washington DC until he met a mulatto named Obama – not even his fellow Democrat black politicians.
Dennis didn’t scream ‘racism’ when Biden announced apartheid policy for his skin color choice of vice president: no whites, Asians, native Americans, etc. need apply. Black skin color is the job requirement.
Given that Dennis is as great a failure with his posts here and goes back into hiding as his fellow failure Biden does these days after briefly surfacing… the obvious unanswered question is:
What does Dennis accomplish here with these posts that satisfies some unknown need that he has?
Old Airborne Dog
Great article Jonathan. Reminds me of Ilhan Omar marrying her brother.
* marriage is marriage, Bonnie and Clyde and now al capone can marry bugsy segal!
Cheers!
* consider civil liability…people still marry? How old fashioned.
👍 Great Post – Jonathan & Company 👌
The copy was delicious and the supporting citations (from Arrested Development, Judge Dimke, and Shameless) made for a spot-on bibliography.
I’d say your assessment is correct Mr. Thompson. The ‘I Married A Prisoner’ sham is a small (a sliver) of participants. I would also deduce that a small sliver of Military ‘marriages’ are contractual-deals for the purpose of making more ($) pay-grade. Same mentality different purpose.
The military increases the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) based on the number of dependents, so if a GI gets married he gets a very slight increase in BAH. If provided on base housing this is irrelevant.
For an E-6 (Staff Sergeant, squad leader) it amounts to $275/month.
Health care is a larger consideration for “marriages of convenience.”
JLM
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Not certain how it is today, but during the Vietnam War a good many newly in-country wedded husbands, came home to find their new Mama-San getting off the plane and rapidly disappearing into the interior. Not unlike today’s illegal alien. Now married to an American, they were newly minted citizens. The military husband would usually hear from his new spouse’s attorney at some point demanding a he sign divorce papers, and of course pay alimony.
Maybe he wasn’t a good husband
How apt an analogy.
Once-free and harmonious America got sucked in by a big “mamasan,” was divorced, and sued for support.
America is paying to this day, including violent factionalization, regulatory tyranny, and $36 trillion in unpayable debt and unfunded liabilities.
275 per month for housemaid and cook? A steal…
The incriminating statements before their marriage are not protected. The real question is if spousal immunity is a courtesy extended at a judge’s discretion? If so, then this ruling may be in accordance with the authority of the judge. Even then, there should be conditions stipulated in the law to guide the judge’s decision. If spousal immunity is a legal right, then this judge exceeded her judicial authority. If the couple had married before Greer’s arrest, would the judge consider the reason they married? Many couples live together today who are not legally married, and at anytime, for any reason, they may choose to marry. Is the judge legally authorized to determine if their reason was valid at any other time? They might have decided to marry so they could have spousal immunity years earlier at the beginning of a joint partnership committing crimes. The question should not be about their reason to marry. It should center on if spousal immunity is a courtesy extended by a judge or if it is a legal right. If there is no law granting authority to extend or withhold immunity, or no conditions stipulated for a judge’s ruling, then the couple is not receiving equal protection under the law.
I don’t like what this couple appears to be doing, but allowing judges to withhold legal rights is a far greater concern to me. When anyone’s rights are taken away without lawful authority, my rights are being taken away.
Marriages are risky
@ Fan of “Law And Order”
I liked reading your comment and agree with your thinking, e.g. “The real question is if spousal immunity is a courtesy extended at a judge’s discretion? … If spousal immunity is a legal right, then this judge exceeded her judicial authority.”
None of this would be an issue were it not for the modern obsession with state-sanctioned marriage which has evolved into a sort of doctrine of state-worship/religion. Even prior to state-sanctioned marriage, so called religious marriage coexisted with private marriage in the common law and other legal systems.
Even social systems dominated by a religious elite and concomitant religious social structure have always recognized free-will as required before religious doctrine can be imposed on any individual. It is true that history is full of examples to the contrary, they however, do not negate the fundamental and elementary principle that an individual’s personal acceptance of the legitimacy of the religious doctrine is necessary for the “legitimate” imposition of that doctrine and that individual. And so non-stat/religious marriage throughout history has been, at least grudgingly, acknowledge as genuine marriage.
In this particular case, the two parties were cohabiting for at least six years — presumably monogamously, since no evidence to the contrary is presented — and may well have, in their hearts, believed themselves “married” in every socially meaningful way. The modern obsession with state-sanctioned marriage, which the Judge personifies, should have no bearing on whether or not so-called spousal immunity is attached. If spousal immunity is a “right” and if the couple believe they are currently, and have been for some time, espoused one to the other, and if the community recognizes them as spouses (after 6 years of cohabitation its hard to believe it wouldn’t) then neither the state-sanctioned prosecutors nor a state-sanctioned judge should not have any say in the matter.
Oops, sneaked in a double negative . That last sentence should be: … “then neither the state-sanctioned prosecutors nor a state-sanctioned judge should have any say in the matter.”
Can’t she simply take the 5th? Why the ruse of marriage?
Prisoners dilemma
The 5th only protects a witness form being forced to provide incriminating evidence against themselves. In the Turey article I don’t remember anything about her “evidence” that would lead to self incrimination so I doubt that avenue is open to her unless she is willing to be untruthful on the stand. And that would directly bring up other criminal sanctions of perjury.
As to any “ruse of marriage”, that, if such is the case, is only the result of the court’s obsession with state-sanctioned marriage. Six years of monogamous cohabitation meets any definition of the spousal relationship, to which spousal immunity attaches if it is a “right”. And this is so regardless of the court’s insistence of the absence of a lawful state-sanctioned marriage. The court’s claim the marriage is a “ruse”, in and of itself, does not negate the spousal relationship if such a relationship exists in the minds of the two individuals. This should be a question put to a jury of their pears and not a finding of fact by this judge.
I fully agree.
If the state can not get a conviction without the testimony of your spouse, your lawyer or your priest,
Then the case is too weak to go to trial.
“the totality of the evidence” (Judge Dimke)
That — the *totality* of the evidence — is the standard of proof.
Including in the case proving that Biden is corrupt. (See Olly’s excellent summary in the prior comment section.)
To undermine your confidence, the Left uses the sophistical trick of plucking a single item out of the totality, as in this: “just how [does] a photo of Biden with some Chinese men prove” that he is corrupt?
A single photo, of course, proves nothing. But the totality, including Biden’s decades-long habit of lying, proves everything.
Will be interesting to how this might play out in future, potential litigation of illegal immigrants, and maybe a politician.
The Clintons should be nervous.
Apparently Washington is not a common law marriage state.
Only eight jurisdictions still allow it. We got rid of it in Ohio in 1991 but when we did, most people didn’t understand the elements to have one. Before ’91. prisons had a prisoner and visitor sign an affidavit attesting to the factors of a common law marriage because a rule required, in certain circumstances only married persons could visit. On rare occasion, I did a divorce based on such an affidavit, but looking back, I can’t say it was a valid marriage. It likely was a rebuttable presumption. One entered into prior to the ban is still valid so it can still come in domestic and probate court.
I c. The state was running a ho house. Fitting…
This has already been covered by James M. Cain in “The Postman Always Rings Twice.”
* postman rings twice… that happens, too. If it’s too good to be true it probably isn’t.